Fox News national poll on Sanders and Warren favorability

[Mr. Morden]

Fox News national poll, conducted Mar. 12-14:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/15/fox-news-poll-trump-approval-slips-even-as-more-feel-economy-improving.html

fav/unfav %:
Sanders 61/32% for +29%
Warren 39/31% for +8%

men: Sanders +24, Warren -1
women: Sanders +33, Warren +18
white: Sanders +18, Warren +3
non-white: Sanders +53, Warren +24
under age 45: Sanders +33, Warren +13
over age 45: Sanders +26, Warren +6
under $50k income: Sanders +40, Warren +17
over $50k income: Sanders +26, Warren +7
Dems: Sanders +78, Warren +53
GOP: Sanders -38, Warren -42
Indies: Sanders +41, Warren +3
white college degree: Sanders +25, Warren +9
white no college degree: Sanders +12, Warren +/-0

[Mr. Morden]

So the exact numbers among Democrats only are:

Sanders:
favorable 85%
unfavorable 8%
never heard of or not sure 7%

Warren:
favorable 64%
unfavorable 11%
never heard of or not sure 25%

Also, a graph for all voters:



Among Dems only:



Among Republicans only:

[Maxwell]

Sanctuary Cities only at -4? that's impressive.

[Xing]

Poor Ryan and McConnell, their own party likes Trump more than them now...

[Married Gay Socialist]

The time for the progressives to make their move is now. Trump will only fuel the flame. Corporate democrats must get out of the way if they want to get Republicans out of office. A corporate democrat would hinder a democratic victory and would cause another Trump term in the White House.

The people want and need a progressive new deal. It's long over-due, and well earned.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Poor Ryan and McConnell, their own party likes Trump more than them now...

That's been the case ever since Dear Leader became the nominee.

Can't say I was even surprised then. The GOP base has evolved increasingly from American conservatism to a more European style nationalist Party.

[Shadows]

women: Sanders +33, Warren +18

non-white: Sanders +53, Warren +24

under age 45: Sanders +33, Warren +13

over age 45:Sanders +26, Warren +6

under $50k income: Sanders +40, Warren +17

Indies: Sanders +41, Warren +3

Some Key points here - A mammoth +38% lead among Independents which Warren will never match even with 100% Name recognition.  

A +29% lead among Non-Whites showing that it had to do with Hillary than Sanders' own weaknesses among Non-Whites. Even with 100% name recognition, Warren can't match that (she can change minds though)

Sanders is +20% ahead in both Under 45 & over 45. What is surprising is that there is no age wise split in Sanders vs Warren.

A +23% split among people earning less than 50K.

A 15% lead of Sanders among women - That just shows that he remains strong among women & it will impossible for Hillary, Warren, Gillibrand or any GE candidate to win the female vote  big with the 1st Female President talk

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

+29 favorables is pretty impressive. Especially compared to the epic fail that was the last nominee.

[Beet]

The huge Independents number confirms my suspicion as posted in the Other Forum, that Warren's not as strong as she could be since she appears too partisan at times. One thing that helped both Trump and Sanders is neither was perceived as a hardcore partisan.

+29 favorables is pretty impressive. Especially compared to the epic fail that was the last nominee.

2020 is 3 years away... Hillary had a 69% favorability in January 2013.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The huge Independents number confirms my suspicion as posted in the Other Forum, that Warren's not as strong as she could be since she appears too partisan at times. One thing that helped both Trump and Sanders is neither was perceived as a hardcore partisan.

Bernie has better numbers with Democrats, too.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2020 is 3 years away... Hillary had a 69% favorability in January 2013.
[/quote]

No one was paying any attention to her positions then.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Sanders > Warren

[Fusionmunster]

+29 favorables is pretty impressive. Especially compared to the epic fail that was the last nominee.

You are insufferable.

[Shadows]

The huge Independents number confirms my suspicion as posted in the Other Forum, that Warren's not as strong as she could be since she appears too partisan at times. One thing that helped both Trump and Sanders is neither was perceived as a hardcore partisan.

Bernie has better numbers with Democrats, too.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2020 is 3 years away... Hillary had a 69% favorability in January 2013.

No one was paying any attention to her positions then.
[/quote]

25% have no opinion on Warren, 7% on Sanders. So let's say Warren & Sanders get 100% name recognition each & manages to convince 85% of the "No Opinion". Warren would have 85% Favor-ability & Bernie will be at 91% favor-ability. So a very small lead then. The Independent & Non-White numbers are pretty damn big not among pure Dems!

The huge Independents number confirms my suspicion as posted in the Other Forum, that Warren's not as strong as she could be since she appears too partisan at times. One thing that helped both Trump and Sanders is neither was perceived as a hardcore partisan.

+29 favorables is pretty impressive. Especially compared to the epic fail that was the last nominee.

2020 is 3 years away... Hillary had a 69% favorability in January 2013.

I agree with you. Things changed - I think the Email stuff really hurt Hillary but she was also not running for President in 2013 & people loved retired politicians who have worked hard.

I think we can agree the Indy numbers & surprisingly Non-White numbers are pretty strong for Bernie over Warren. Warren certainly seems weaker than Bernie among non-whites (AS OF NOW - Could change !). Bernie also can play the Civil Rights/Arrest for Segregation card which Warren can't play!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Warren certainly seems weaker than Bernie among non-whites (AS OF NOW - Could change !). But I can argue Bernie can play the Civil Rights/Arrest for Segregation card which Warren can't play!

Sadly, David Brock successfully promoted the idea that a CORE leader had a race problem that the Goldwater girl did not.

[Shadows]

Warren certainly seems weaker than Bernie among non-whites (AS OF NOW - Could change !). But I can argue Bernie can play the Civil Rights/Arrest for Segregation card which Warren can't play!

Sadly, David Brock successfully promoted the idea that a CORE leader had a race problem that the Goldwater girl did not.

What is the point of discussing Hillary now? I mean she is gone, lost to Trump (ultimate humiliation).

The movement was killed, the Anti-Reagan candidate who could have halted the 40 year decline of the middle & working class was stopped.

But people have to look forward & look to 2018 & 2020. No use going backwards.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

+29 favorables is pretty impressive. Especially compared to the epic fail that was the last nominee.

You are insufferable.

And right.

[Fusionmunster]

+29 favorables is pretty impressive. Especially compared to the epic fail that was the last nominee.

You are insufferable.

And right.

Regardless of how right he is, he should move on instead of rubbing Hillary supporters noses in it.

[Beet]

+29 favorables is pretty impressive. Especially compared to the epic fail that was the last nominee.

You are insufferable.

And right.

Regardless of how right he is, he should move on instead of rubbing Hillary supporters noses in it.

He has a deranged hatred of Hillary.

[Rjjr77]

Poor Ryan and McConnell, their own party likes Trump more than them now...

No one likes McConnell, that's why he's one of the best politicians of all time.

[Shadows]

Summary Chart Among Registered Voters

                           ---------Favorable--------- --------Unfavorable-------- (Can’t say)   Never heard of
                        
                        TOTAL Strongly Somewhat      TOTAL   Somewhat Strongly
Bernie Sanders    61%      33          28               32          12           20         4                    3
Elizabeth Warren  39%      24          15               31           7            24       10                   19

Shocker - Why do people hate Warren stronger than the socialist Bernie (Strongly unfavorable?)

Others Areas

Liberal Voters

Warren - 71-9 (+62%)
Sanders - 90-6 (+84%)

Moderate Voters

Warren - 33-22 (+11%)
Sanders - 64-23 (+39%)

Conservative Voters

Warren - 17-51 (-34%)
Sanders - 36-56 (-20%)

White Evangelical

Warren - 20-48 (-28%)
Sanders - 35-58 (-23%)

White College Degree

Warren - 43-34 (+9%)
Sanders - 60-35 (+25%)

White No Degree

Warren - 34-34 (0%)
Sanders - 52-40 (+12%)

Trump Voters

Warren - 11-58 (-47%)
Sanders - 27-65 (-38%)

Clinton Voters

Warren - 66-10 (+56%)
Sanders - 88-7 (+81%)



Percentage of people who hold a favorable view - 64% among moderates, 35% among Conservatives, 36% among White Evangelicals - Very strong for Sanders.

The Clinton Voters & White College Degree numbers for Sanders are flat out shocking (Phenomenal numbers - Expected him to do worse)

[twenty42]

This kinda reminds me of how Republicans loved Palin in 2009 and Rubio was a young star in 2013. A party loses a presidential election and then gets infatuated with somebody antithetical to their nominee who just lost.

Bernie is so insanely popular with all these different demographics yet managed to lose the primary vote last year by double digits. I understand the superdelegate thing and the unfair disadvantage he had last year, but come on. If his appeal was that far and wide he would have found a way to upset Hillary like Obama did, or at least win some delegates of substance to seriously impact the race. 2008 proved that she wasn't unbeatable in the primary even despite her built-in advantages.

It's almost as bad as Republicans at various points in Obama's second term bemoaning, "Romney could definitely beat him if the election were held now!!" Let it go. Move on from losing candidates.

One final thought on Bernie...one only needs to look recently to John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Hillary to see it may not be the best idea these days to nominate a candidate who previously lost a bid for the nomination. Probably a reason they couldn't close the deal the first time.

[Senator-elect Spark]

This kinda reminds me of how Republicans loved Palin in 2009 and Rubio was a young star in 2013. A party loses a presidential election and then gets infatuated with somebody antithetical to their nominee who just lost.

Bernie is so insanely popular with all these different demographics yet managed to lose the primary vote last year by double digits. I understand the superdelegate thing and the unfair disadvantage he had last year, but come on. If his appeal was that far and wide he would have found a way to upset Hillary like Obama did, or at least win some delegates of substance to seriously impact the race. 2008 proved that she wasn't unbeatable in the primary even despite her built-in advantages.

It's almost as bad as Republicans at various points in Obama's second term bemoaning, "Romney could definitely beat him if the election were held now!!" Let it go. Move on from losing candidates.

One final thought on Bernie...one only needs to look recently to John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Hillary to see it may not be the best idea these days to nominate a candidate who previously lost a bid for the nomination. Probably a reason they couldn't close the deal the first time.

That is a great point. But I still think Bernie would win in a walk. Shame he wasn't nominated and isn't running in 2020.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

+29 favorables is pretty impressive. Especially compared to the epic fail that was the last nominee.

I'm old enough to remember when Hillary had a 65% favorability rating (see: in excess of +30%)

[Married Gay Socialist]

The huge Independents number confirms my suspicion as posted in the Other Forum, that Warren's not as strong as she could be since she appears too partisan at times. One thing that helped both Trump and Sanders is neither was perceived as a hardcore partisan.

+29 favorables is pretty impressive. Especially compared to the epic fail that was the last nominee.

2020 is 3 years away... Hillary had a 69% favorability in January 2013.

She always starts with good poll numbers at the start, and they continue to fall util the election. That is because Hillary Clinton is a horrible candidate. Her poll numbers go down the longer she is in the race and the more she is in the public spotlight. The same was true for her senate race, 2008, and 2016. She does best at the beginning, and then she ruins it by coming off insincere and fraudulent. 

[Shadows]

This kinda reminds me of how Republicans loved Palin in 2009 and Rubio was a young star in 2013. A party loses a presidential election and then gets infatuated with somebody antithetical to their nominee who just lost.

Bernie is so insanely popular with all these different demographics yet managed to lose the primary vote last year by double digits. I understand the superdelegate thing and the unfair disadvantage he had last year, but come on. If his appeal was that far and wide he would have found a way to upset Hillary like Obama did, or at least win some delegates of substance to seriously impact the race. 2008 proved that she wasn't unbeatable in the primary even despite her built-in advantages.

It's almost as bad as Republicans at various points in Obama's second term bemoaning, "Romney could definitely beat him if the election were held now!!" Let it go. Move on from losing candidates.

One final thought on Bernie...one only needs to look recently to John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Hillary to see it may not be the best idea these days to nominate a candidate who previously lost a bid for the nomination. Probably a reason they couldn't close the deal the first time.

Obama was not a socialist. Obama was not 74. Obama had 26 debates to connect with the audience vs Bernie's 6 scheduled debates. The Super-Delegate thing was nowhere near as lopsided for Obama.Obama was an actual Democrat vs Bernie who is an Independent.

 And most importantly Obama was black running to be the 1st Black President in history & he had 25-30% of the Dem primary base guaranteed without which he never would have won. Hillary won almost every big state from Texas to CA to NY to PA & still lost due to the black vote. Sanders had no name recognition while Clinton's husband was a President & she had the highest name recognition of possibly any candidate. The COMPARISON is simply not fair.

And your argument of 1st Time candidacy is flat out UNTRUE as many presidents have had unsuccessful runs with candidacy before

LBJ - Lost earlier
Reagan - Lost earlier
Nixon - Lost earlier
George HW Bush - Lost earlier

Because Clinton, Bush & Obama were 1st time candidates doesn't make that a norm.

I don't think people are going for Bernie because Clinton lost & they need to try a different direction but because in many ways he is a once in a generation politician like FDR was (or maybe Reagan was for Republicans) & that is the need of the hour.