Bernie Sanders Beating Jeb Bush: Liberal Democrat Sanders Has More Support Than Every 2016 Republican Candidate In New Poll

  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1981

    Jun 01, 2015 3:26 AM GMT
    According to the latest polling, Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) presidential campaign has more support than the campaign of media favorites Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and every other Republican candidate.

    The latest Quinnipiac Poll revealed that five Republicans are tied at the top of the Republican field. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Ben Carson, and Mike Huckabee each were at 10%.

    Do you know who is more popular than even the most popular 2016 Republicans? Sen. Bernie Sanders. In the same poll, Sanders was supported by 15% of Democrats for their party’s nomination. Sen. Sanders trailed Hillary Clinton 57%-15%, but his fifteen percent made him the second most popular presidential candidate in the country.

    The media treats Republicans like Carly Fiorina (2%), Ted Cruz (6%), and Rand Paul (7%) like they are serious candidates, but Bernie Sanders has two to seven times more support than these three Republicans.

    http://www.politicususa.com/2015/05/29/bernie-sanders-support-2016-republican-presidential-candidate-poll.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 01, 2015 3:52 AM GMT
    Bernie is attracting not only the young but also the old.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 01, 2015 3:59 AM GMT
    You're really comparing apples to oranges. Bernie gets the vote of everyone who doesn't want Hillary basically. Until Omalley enters that is. Then he'll fade away.
    The Republicans don't have a clear front runner juggernaut and a lot more candidates. So the pie is made into more slices.
    You can't say Bernie has more support than any republican. Bernie has more support among Democrats than any Republican does in their party. Who cares? Show me a head to head poll of a theoretical match up of Bernie vs each Republican and then there's something worth looking at.
    For full disclosure I'd be thrilled if Bernie was the next president.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 01, 2015 4:02 AM GMT
    The article and the OP have to be one of the most misleading implications. The poll was not a head to head contest between Sanders and any Republican. The Republican support is divided up among several candidates, so the percentage for each one reflects that simple fact.

    I'm sure the article authors know what they are doing, but poor KissTheSky was completely ignorant of the slight of hand.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 01, 2015 3:37 PM GMT
    I will pay attention to the polls about two weeks before the election.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 01, 2015 3:48 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidThe article and the OP have to be one of the most misleading implications. The poll was not a head to head contest between Sanders and any Republican. The Republican support is divided up among several candidates, so the percentage for each one reflects that simple fact.

    I'm sure the article authors know what they are doing, but poor KissTheSky was completely ignorant of the slight of hand.


    If only you were half as vigilant at policing Southbeach's ignorance and sleight of hand. He's got more tricks than David Copperfield. Oh sorry, I forgot, you "see no deceit from Southbeach".
  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1981

    Jun 02, 2015 12:01 AM GMT
    socalfitness saidThe article and the OP have to be one of the most misleading implications. The poll was not a head to head contest between Sanders and any Republican. The Republican support is divided up among several candidates, so the percentage for each one reflects that simple fact.

    I'm sure the article authors know what they are doing, but poor KissTheSky was completely ignorant of the slight of hand.


    You can choose to interpret the poll results however you like.
    But the data is clear:
    Clinton has the most support, Sanders is second and the Republicans are considerably behind Sanders.
    Will some things change between now and the election? Of course, but the poll's findings are a snapshot of current support.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2015 12:10 AM GMT
    KissTheSky said
    socalfitness saidThe article and the OP have to be one of the most misleading implications. The poll was not a head to head contest between Sanders and any Republican. The Republican support is divided up among several candidates, so the percentage for each one reflects that simple fact.

    I'm sure the article authors know what they are doing, but poor KissTheSky was completely ignorant of the slight of hand.


    You can choose to interpret the poll results however you like.
    But the data is clear:
    Clinton has the most support, Sanders is second and the Republicans are considerably behind Sanders.
    Will some things change between now and the election? Of course, but the poll's findings are a snapshot of current support.

    But comparing support for Hillary or Sanders to support for Bush, or any other Republican, as suggested by the article and your thread title, is meaningless because the Republican support is divided up among many more candidates than the Democratic support.

    So obvious it's completely absurd even making that comparison.
  • sportsjockla

    Posts: 498

    Jun 02, 2015 2:30 AM GMT
    Polls were way off with Obama & Romney. Polls had Romney leading or tied with Obama. Obama beat Romney 332 - 206 Landslide
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2015 4:11 AM GMT
    sportsjockla saidPolls were way off with Obama & Romney. Polls had Romney leading or tied with Obama. Obama beat Romney 332 - 206 Landslide


    Did I ever tell you what a brain dead idiot you are? No?

    You're an idiot.
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Jun 02, 2015 4:19 AM GMT
    sportsjockla saidPolls were way off with Obama & Romney. Polls had Romney leading or tied with Obama. Obama beat Romney 332 - 206 Landslide


    Hilary and Romney sure got their asses handed to them by Obama icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2015 1:21 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    sportsjockla saidPolls were way off with Obama & Romney. Polls had Romney leading or tied with Obama. Obama beat Romney 332 - 206 Landslide


    Did I ever tell you what a brain dead idiot you are? No?

    You're an idiot.


    I get a kick out of how you disdain facts.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2015 3:17 PM GMT

    Bernie Sanders story at 2:11 --

  • wellwell

    Posts: 2265

    Jun 03, 2015 3:08 AM GMT
    tj85016 said
    sportsjockla saidPolls were way off with Obama & Romney. Polls had Romney leading or tied with Obama. Obama beat Romney 332 - 206 Landslide


    Hilary and Romney sure got their asses handed to them by Obama icon_lol.gif



    ...Someone's use, and/or comprehension, of the English language is nothing short of perverse.

    Here's a "landslide":

    Carter 49 / R.W. Reagan 489 / 1980
    or if you prefer:
    Mondale 13 / R.W. Reagan 525 / 1984

    Additionally, Romney threw the election; because, he's a RINO, NOT a Republican––
    Exactly the way McCain did 4 years prior; same reason/s.
    FYI "genuine" Republicans and all conservatives consider the RINO's
    Highly-Treasonous.

    Try & keep up w/ politics, a bit; it'll enhance your credibility . . .
    http://conservativestream.com/recorded-shows/savage.php
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Jun 03, 2015 3:20 AM GMT
    ^^

    oh, I see, Romney "threw" the election icon_lol.gif

    you're almost as senile as John McCain
  • wellwell

    Posts: 2265

    Jun 03, 2015 3:28 AM GMT
    ^^^

    Can you name some other reason why Romney-&-predecessor did not mop-the-floor w/ the chuckle-head-communist, when each had the chance?

    My subject was perversion of the language, not senility; try and keep up, a bit . . .