Warren and Sanders beat Hillary in Democracy for America survey

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[IceSpear]

Good thing that a) Hillary leads by 50 points in the real polls and b) Warren isn't running.

Just out of curiosity, what were the results of their 2008 survey?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Good thing that a) Hillary leads by 50 points in the real polls and b) Warren isn't running.

Just out of curiosity, what were the results of their 2008 survey?

I found this from March 2007.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[IceSpear]

Good thing that a) Hillary leads by 50 points in the real polls and b) Warren isn't running.

Just out of curiosity, what were the results of their 2008 survey?

I found this from March 2007.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Would she [Hillary] have even cracked single digits here (and in similar communities) in 2008?

I will now accept my accolades. Great job more than doubling your support Hillary!

In all seriousness, if Hillary could get 48% in 2008 when she was at 9% in this poll and trailing f'ing Kucinich, the fact that she's at 23% now...

[New_Conservative]

Isn't this faction of the Democratic Party totally irrelevant ? (no offense leftists)

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Good thing that a) Hillary leads by 50 points in the real polls and b) Warren isn't running.

Just out of curiosity, what were the results of their 2008 survey?

I found this from March 2007.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Would she [Hillary] have even cracked single digits here (and in similar communities) in 2008?

I will now accept my accolades. Great job more than doubling your support Hillary!

In all seriousness, if Hillary could get 48% in 2008 when she was at 9% in this poll and trailing f'ing Kucinich, the fact that she's at 23% now...

Yeah, Hillary ran against ten candidates in 2008. She is running against three this time around. Do you really think a ten percent improvement is important?

Anyway, this faction of the Democratic Party is just as hackish as some of my fellow Paulites are in the GOP. Just another small (but rapidly growing) corner of the tent.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Good thing that a) Hillary leads by 50 points in the real polls and b) Warren isn't running.

Just out of curiosity, what were the results of their 2008 survey?

I found this from March 2007.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Would she [Hillary] have even cracked single digits here (and in similar communities) in 2008?

I will now accept my accolades. Great job more than doubling your support Hillary!

In all seriousness, if Hillary could get 48% in 2008 when she was at 9% in this poll and trailing f'ing Kucinich, the fact that she's at 23% now...

In all seriousness, if Warren could get 42% now when the person in first place in 2008, who went on to win the nomination had only 28%......

[IceSpear]

Isn't this faction of the Democratic Party totally irrelevant ? (no offense leftists)

Kucinich was at 10% and ahead of the lady in gold. Draw your own conclusion.

[IceSpear]

Good thing that a) Hillary leads by 50 points in the real polls and b) Warren isn't running.

Just out of curiosity, what were the results of their 2008 survey?

I found this from March 2007.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Would she [Hillary] have even cracked single digits here (and in similar communities) in 2008?

I will now accept my accolades. Great job more than doubling your support Hillary!

In all seriousness, if Hillary could get 48% in 2008 when she was at 9% in this poll and trailing f'ing Kucinich, the fact that she's at 23% now...

Yeah, Hillary ran against ten candidates in 2008. She is running against three this time around. Do you really think a ten percent improvement is important?

Anyway, this faction of the Democratic Party is just as hackish as some of my fellow Paulites are in the GOP. Just another small (but rapidly growing) corner of the tent.

Well, the point was that Hillary had virtually no support among this type of "activist progressive" community in 2008 despite the fact that she won 48% of the vote. Now she has a pretty decent chunk of support there, which is just more evidence of the across the board shift in support to Hillary across all segments of the party (which lines up with the polling evidence, going from ~35% at this point in 2008 to 60-65% now).

Also, how exactly is it that Edwards had so much support in this poll when the Iraq War vote was supposed to be what killed Hillary? And he voted the exact same way as she did.

[Bigby]

Isn't this faction of the Democratic Party totally irrelevant ? (no offense leftists)

Kucinich was at 10% and ahead of the lady in gold. Draw your own conclusion.

I love how South Dakota is an island of gold in a sea of purple.

Also, odd how Vermont, Maine, and Connecticut voted for Obama when their fellow New Englanders (who are ideologically similar) all supported Hillary.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Where the hell did Rob Reichs name come from??

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Good thing that a) Hillary leads by 50 points in the real polls and b) Warren isn't running.

Just out of curiosity, what were the results of their 2008 survey?

I found this from March 2007.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Would she [Hillary] have even cracked single digits here (and in similar communities) in 2008?

I will now accept my accolades. Great job more than doubling your support Hillary!

In all seriousness, if Hillary could get 48% in 2008 when she was at 9% in this poll and trailing f'ing Kucinich, the fact that she's at 23% now...

Yeah, Hillary ran against ten candidates in 2008. She is running against three this time around. Do you really think a ten percent improvement is important?

Anyway, this faction of the Democratic Party is just as hackish as some of my fellow Paulites are in the GOP. Just another small (but rapidly growing) corner of the tent.

Well, the point was that Hillary had virtually no support among this type of "activist progressive" community in 2008 despite the fact that she won 48% of the vote. Now she has a pretty decent chunk of support there, which is just more evidence of the across the board shift in support to Hillary across all segments of the party (which lines up with the polling evidence, going from ~35% at this point in 2008 to 60-65% now).

Also, how exactly is it that Edwards had so much support in this poll when the Iraq War vote was supposed to be what killed Hillary? And he voted the exact same way as she did.

I agree that this corner of the party is very small and not important.

As for John Edwards, his campaign was very populist and folksy. He might have voted along the lines with Clinton, but he spoke about "the two Americas" and launched his campaign in Katrina ravaged New Orleans.

[Mehmentum]

Aw shucks, Hillary might was well just pack her bags now.

[KCDem]

Good thing DFA is as relevant in the Democratic primary as Bobby Jindal.

[Flake]

IceSpear, please tone down the hackishness, we're a year away from anything meaningful.

[Vega]

The Hillary hackery that IceSpear has been spewing is getting unbarrable.

You're generally a pretty good poster, but this is getting a bit much.

[Beet]

IceSpear is right. Is jfern supposed to post anti Hillary stuff here without any rebuttal? An increase from 9% support to 23% support is significant.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Wish they would take out Warren's name...

[IceSpear]

Jeez, we're only two weeks into the 2016 cycle and people are already getting annoyed with me interrupting the anti-Hillary circlejerk? This is gonna be a fun 2 years.

[The_Doctor]

Hillary's always had problems with the activist Left since 2002. (The irony, before 2002, she was the darling of the activist Left). On the other hand, her support among the Democratic base voters has never been higher.

But yeah, I'm curious how the activist left tries to engineer a primary against Clinton and what they do to try to create these conditions. Can they?

[Adam Griffin]

Isn't this faction of the Democratic Party totally irrelevant ? (no offense leftists)

Considering this is the faction that largely comprises the activist groups and Democratic county parties throughout the country, no. Everybody can laugh about how small of a faction they are in numbers, but in terms of dollars and volunteer hours, they very well may be a majority. Sure, crapping on them isn't going to cost a candidate a primary victory (unless it's 2008-close all over again, LOL), but it very well may wind up costing them a general election victory when you factor in the loss of enthusiasm and motivation for these people to organize, volunteer and otherwise go above and beyond in getting their preferred candidates elected.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Where the hell did Rob Reichs name come from??

This is what I want to know.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Isn't this faction of the Democratic Party totally irrelevant ? (no offense leftists)

Kucinich was at 10% and ahead of the lady in gold. Draw your own conclusion.

I love how South Dakota is an island of gold in a sea of purple.

Also, odd how Vermont, Maine, and Connecticut voted for Obama when their fellow New Englanders (who are ideologically similar) all supported Hillary.

I would suspect that Upper NE would be more pro-Obama and older, more traditionally Democratic states in Southern NE would back Hillary.  Obama was leading in New Hampshire up until the very last day when NH voters decided to put the brakes on Obama's coronation (a win in NH and the whole thing is over by Super Tuesday) and extend the debate, essentially.  On the other hand, Connecticut's primary fell on Super Tuesday, when Obama dominated across the map everywhere except Hillary's two backyards.  (Upper South and the NYC area)  Also take into account Hillary's strength with Hispanics.  New Jersey was a easy Hillary win, with heavily Hispanic Bergen, Passaic, and Hudson counties providing huge margins.  Connecticut isn't quite as Hispanic as NJ, and their whites are a good bit more progressive.  Hillary also bucked the Western trend by taking Arizona and New Mexico that night.