• • • • • Rising Stars • • • • •

[NYC_SKP]

.
[font color=blue]We need a champion.

Warren, Sanders, O'Malley. All are progressive champions.



Dream Big and GOTV! [/font color]

[daleanime]

1. K&R.....

[blm]

2. Keep an eye on Jeff Jackson in NC. Sure would love to see him in DC.

http://www.politicsnc.com/jeff-jackson-wins-twitter-justonelegislator/

Remember his Snow Day Coup?

[NYC_SKP]

3. I LOVE this guy! Funny and effective all at once.

I think the win goes to the person who does things differently, thinks outside the box.

Traditional tactics, focus groups, all of that just might not be enough these days.

[ms liberty]

44. one of my coworkers lives in his district...

I was asking him about this guy the other day. He likes him a lot and sees him as a rising star too. He said he's been at every GLBT event they've had in the Charlotte area. He does think it's too soon for him to run for the Senate...we were talking about the potential dem candidates for the 2016 election, when Burr will be up again. It looks like Hagan will probably run against him (Burr), although she hasn't announced yet.

[Renew Deal]

4. The Warren supporters jumping to Hillary have really given Hillary a boost.

[eloydude]

9. Actually it's the other way around

I see a declining pattern, and continues to drop. I daresay, with the summer 'round the corner, Bernie will be hitting the trail, introducing himself to the country, and then when the debates begin in August, Bernie will politely and effectively burn Clinton's derriere.

People are seeing Clinton for exactly who she is - a waffler, a triangulator, and a 1% elite that has no understanding of the major issue of income inequality AND Social Security safety nets.

[Renew Deal]

26. No it's not. The #2 choice for Warren supporters is Hillary.

4. Clinton gets stronger without Warren in the field

Because Elizabeth Warren is — gasp! — not running for president, CNN/ORC decided not to include Elizabeth Warren's name in the Democratic mix in this poll, the first time that's been the case this cycle. Conventional wisdom — often wrong, of course — holds that the progressive Warren would be the ideal challenger to Clinton from the left.

But Clinton actually runs stronger in the poll when Warren is left off the list of candidates and potential candidates. In March, Clinton was the choice of 62% of Democrats, to Warren's 10%. Without Warren, Clinton's support among Democrats jumps seven points — to 69%.

Clinton's poll numbers undoubtedly spiked thanks to the tremendous media buzz swirling around her 2016 campaign announcement last week. But the fact that a good chunk of Warren's support has moved in Clinton's direction undercuts the notion that the left is wholly uncomfortable with her becoming the Democratic Party's standard-bearer. It will be up to her other likely challengers — Martin O'Malley, Bernie Sanders and Jim Webb — to remind Democrats of why they should be skeptical of Clinton redux.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/20/politics/2016-presidential-poll-takeaways

[sabrina 1]

14. Hillary's polls are going down steadily. Bad sign this early on. Bernie's rise AGAIN

as they have doing since Jan of this year.

Now all we have to do is keep on introducing him to the voters.

I'd like to see some Indy polls, this is the election that is going to reject BIG MONEY and the Status Quo.

Great poll, Warren and Bernie, rising stars.

If Warren who I absolutely love, doesn't run, her votes will go to Bernie, as mine will.

[Renew Deal]

28. Look at polls that don't contain Warren (who happens to not be running)

Polls including her are meaningless at this point (though they are all meaningless to some degree).

[sabrina 1]

36. I have. There are so many polls out there. The ones that are now eliminating Warren do not

show much movement for either Hillary or Bernie. I think Warren supporters, which I certainly am, are holding off (I believe her that she is not running) so eliminating her hasn't changed much in the polls, yet.

The fact is that Bernie is unknown, eg, last Oct when he was first included in polls, he was at 1%, a virtual zero. By Jan he was at 3%. Over the following months his polls rose to 7%, then 10% and are now at 13% to 14%. A steady rise as people are introduced to him.

Hillary, whose polls were consistently over 80% which we saw regularly here on DU, have dropped by nearly 20%.

Polls this early on mean very little, I agree. Only political junkies, like us, are actually paying attention right now.

However it is the trend that is important in these polls right now. The consistent rise of Bernie's polls and the decline of Hillary's. If that keeps up, and it will as his campaign kicks off, as more and more people get to know him, then we will see where the people stand.

[MADem]

5. Link? Source? nt

[NYC_SKP]

6. I know. It's hard to believe that it's not some trollish made-up graph thingy.

I loved Pollster in 2007 and 2008, now Huffington owns them.

Here's your link: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-new-hampshire-presidential-democratic-caucus

And here's a screencap from 2008, we are not even 1/3 way through this graph for this season:

[MADem]

7. You can pull out the partisan and robo-polls, and unload the generic 'adults' and limit your sample

to likely voters, and registered voters, and come up with a completely different result. Depending on which polls you choose, you can make those lines go pretty much anywhere!



http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-new-hampshire-presidential-democratic-caucus#!smoothing=less&selectedpoll=21737&hiddensubpops=A&parties=D,R&partisanship=N&estimate=custom&hiddenpollsters=gravis-marketingtownhallcom,franklin-piercerkmboston-herald,gravis-marketinghowie-carr,ppp-d,ppp-d,purple-strategies,umass-amherstwbztvyougov

I was a bit appalled when I saw a "Howie Carr" poll listed in the mix--that guy is toxic on a good day.

[NYC_SKP]

10. Dude, I didn't tweak the number or pre-select the polls, I used the graph that includes all 9 polls.

I think it's nine.

And it's not like the graph you've included looks much better for her.

People are free to play with the selectors themselves, but the outcome is pretty much the same.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-new-hampshire-presidential-democratic-caucus

[MADem]

16. See post 15, below. Actually, you can make those lines go all over hell if you play with them. nt

[sufrommich]

12. The poll chart he's using was updated 19 hours ago:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary


There's a reason he's sticking to the 10 day old chart.

[MADem]

15. I understand that--I am noting that a lot of the polls have limited utility.

"Adults" include people who don't vote, will never vote, are not US citizens, but have an opinion and share it with a pollster.

Anyone on a "Howie Carr" calling/internet list is going to pick what they perceive as the "worst" Dem, because his audience are all mouth breathing wingnut idiots who virulently oppose Democrats and want them to lose.

I took out the D and R polls, the automated and internet ones, tossed out the "adults" who may not even be citizens, and came to a very different conclusion. The material provided allows one to do that.

It's an amusing exercise.

[NYC_SKP]

19. Good grief, my chart is fresh from the source this morning, it's the NH primary, the first primary.

But even the national polls show three stars rising.

Yay!

[sabrina 1]

18. No matter which poll you look at, the trend is that Bernie's polls have been steadily rising as

people get to know him, while Hillary's have been declining and the primaries haven't even started yet.

Bernie is up 10% since Jan.

More in some polls, but overall, a great sign that all he needs now is recognition and we will be making sure he gets it. Issues are what will matter in this election AND Big Money corrupting our system is going to be a huge issue this time.

[NYC_SKP]

20. They can't take it, they can't take the truth.

I now have three accusations of fudging the numbers or using old data, despite my providing links and the very clear labeling of the graphs.

Pretty pathetic.

Anyway you slice it, the socialist old guy is taking a bite.

And the Senator who isn't even running is doing better than that!

[amuse bouche]

31. "They can't take it"

I remember when 'they' meant the evil rethugs. Now it means other Dems.

Sad

I think it's way too early to be so sure and gleeful about anything

[MADem]

32. Why are you even framing your comments in such an absurd fashion?

First you don't link to your source, and then, when it's deconstructed for what it actually is, you get all Tom Cruise on people? I think you're having difficulty handling what it is you actually posted.

Come on. Let's get real, here--no one is accusing you of "fudging" anything--you were asked to provide a link so people could see what the hell you were selling, and now, we see it for what it is.

Anyone can go to that link now--since you provided it, when requested--and see what that "poll" is all about.

Like I said, earlier--Howie Carr...? He's really gonna help us pick a Democratic nominee! (Not...he's a vitriolic wingnut who hates anyone and everyone on the left.)

That's what your little guy is roaring about...! The fact that your dispositive "poll" (aggregate) has very LIMITED utility. That's not a slam against it, but I wouldn't count any chickens, no matter which candidate you are backing.

[Renew Deal]

29. Polling containing Warren aren't realistic

She's not running. We can wonder what could have been. But what could have been isn't what it is.

[MaggieD]

8. Why do you keep posting that old data?

Just curious. Are you trying to deliberately mislead people? Why not a link? You know, the one that shows Bernie at about 10% right now.

[NYC_SKP]

11. Old data? LOL, like one hour old. Look, people can check, here is the link, don't be silly.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-new-hampshire-presidential-democratic-caucus

[MaggieD]

13. How about a real one?

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary

Pollster Trend

Hillary Clinton 62.3%
Elizabeth Warren 12.4%
Bernie Sanders 10.6%
Joe Biden 9.4%
Martin O'Malley 1.8%
Jim Webb 1.6%
Brian Schweitzer 0.0%
Undecided
Other

ETA: you know what's really funny? Bernie is being beaten by someone not even running, and barely ahead of Biden, who is also undeclared. Yeah, he's really catching fire, all right.

[NYC_SKP]

17. New Hampshire primaries are historically predictive. I'm optimistic.

And you should be worried!

Warren isn't even running and garners a pretty sizable chunk in your chart.

Sanders hasn't officially launched.

Basically, Sanders and O'Malley are going to put big dents in the Clinton lead and once Warren makes a move, who knows?

[MaggieD]

24. LOL! Okay!

[MADem]

25. Historically predictive? When? Not in recent history!

Didn't McCain win NH in 2000? IIRC, he kicked George Bush's ASS up there. He wasn't even the GOP nominee that year! And if Bill Bradley had spent a little more money/time there that year, he could have beaten Gore--he was surprisingly close to him.

If next-door neighbor Kerry hadn't won in 2004, he wouldn't have been worth his salt at all. He was a known quantity in NH, lots of former Massachusettsians live in the southern half of the state.

And if you remember, Hillary Clinton won NH in 2008--and didn't take the nomination.

So I think that what happens in NH isn't apropos of very much anymore.

Years ago, when they only had a few showboat primaries, and smoke filled rooms ruled the day, NH might have gotten lucky, but those days are long gone. NH might weed out the deadbeats, the people who come in at the back of the pack, but it doesn't tell us -- and has not so done for a long time--who the next POTUS will be.

[MADem]

22. Your poll is just for NH--the other one is for the entire country. nt

[morningfog]

23. As the primary unfolds, the state polls are much more important.

You know that.

[MADem]

27. NH is not predictive of anything save who the obvious losers at the back of the field are.

George Bush lost to McCain in NH. Obama lost to Clinton in NH. We saw how that worked out.

NH is a beauty and elimination contest--the people at the back of the pack run out of money, their charms wear thin there and they get kicked off the cart. It's indicative of nothing more.

Since NH is the FIRST primary, there's no 'unfolding' happening at that stage--the ribbon is barely off the gift.

It serves to thin the herd and bring in vital revenue in the form of hotel/restaurant/shopping receipts from campaign personnel/reporters/visitors/hangers-on that the state absolutely depends upon, but really, nothing more.

[morningfog]

33. As I said, the state polls are more singificant than the national poll as the primaries unfold.

Yes, NH is one and the first.

But, I am not suggesting looking solely at NH. NH, IA, SC, NV and CO are more important and influential than national polls. National polls at this point are not very important. Watching the early primary polling for trends as the primary campaigns unfold will tell us much more.

[MADem]

35. And as I said, this poll aggregate posted in the OP is for New Hampshire. The FIRST primary.

Not other primaries. That is why I said that the OP chart has limited predictive utility--again, McCain wasn't the GOP nominee in 2000, and Clinton wasn't the Dem nominee in 2008....yet they both won NH.

NH's utility is to get RID of people -- to cull the field -- not to pick a winner.

If you want numbers that reflect where the candidates are sitting across several states, you need to look at the link in post 13--that one reflects that information.

[morningfog]

45. Cripes. I'm talking about individual state polls, not aggregates. That's my entire point.

And has been throughout this subthread.

The national poll are not significant at this point. Moving forward, the polls that matter the most are those of the first five primaries, indiviudally.

[MADem]

46. I'm talking about the poll that is posted in the OP--you know, the subject of this thread. nt

[morningfog]

47. Re-read this subthread. You brought up the point of the national polls.

I pointed out that the early state polls are where the most important polling will be found as the primary campaign progresses. Then you bounced back and forth.

Whatever, Madem. Whatever.

[MADem]

55. Yes, and the context I brought them up in was that the OP was talking about NH, not national polls.

Be that as it may, NH is the opening salvo--it is a culling process. As I noted elsewhere, NH hasn't picked the winner reliably, so it's a crap shoot as to whether they will do so this time. If Clinton wins the NH primary, that doesn't mean she will win the election. If Sanders wins, though that is highly unlikely, that doesn't mean he'll win nationally. NH gets rid of people, it empties their wallets and crushes their dreams... it doesn't pick winners. And the HuffPo polls are aggregates--if you go to the link that was eventually provided, you can point to those dots and see where that data came from--each dot is a different poll, from a different pollster, and some are most assuredly better or worse than others.

[lark]

21. I'd add Alan Grayson and Sherrod Brown

to the list. Hopefully Feingold will win in WI and there'll be another name to add to this illustrious list.

[NYC_SKP]

30. As these true progressive leaders come out more and more, their numbers will rise.

And there's only one big pot of voters, as yet uninformed, from which to draw support.

Go Progressives!

[MADem]

34. I wouldn't. Grayson can't get out from under his personal problems.

He won't be backed by Senate leadership if he decides to run for Rubio's seat, never mind POTUS (and that ain't happening).

[lark]

37. Press is certainly attacking him.

Do they do the same to Repugs getting a divorce - No. I'll still stand by him as a good progressive.

[MADem]

41. If he learned how to say "No comment" instead of using incendiary and trashy language regarding

the mother of his five children, two of whom are still in grade school, the press would have nothing to "attack." It's not an "attack" to report comments that a sitting Congressman says to a reporter on video.

They absolutely do the same thing to Republicans who act like assholes to their partners--as a recent example, does the name Desjarlais ring a bell?

Grayson may vote the right way, but he's not a nice person. His trashing the mother of his children will scar those kids for life. I don't think he cares--he just wants to move on with his new girlfriend. If she had any sense, she'd run. But of course, she wants his Congressional seat, so she's likely not going anywhere until he either runs for the Senate or decides against it.

[TBF]

38. Bummer - hoping to see Julian Castro in the mix

but he is young (40). Very popular ex-mayor of San Antonio, Obama promoted him to running HUD so he has not been in Washington long. Hopefully will be considered as a VP candidate. I like him because his family fairly recently immigrated (his grandmother), lots of work on the ground in San Antonio by his mother who was a single parent & activist, brought jobs to San Antonio as mayor. I like to talk about him because he is charismatic, productive, and the type of person that I see as the future of the party.


Julian, Erica & baby Cristian (Dec.) - they also have a daughter Carina who must be 4 or 5 now.

[NYC_SKP]

39. It's still pretty early, I predict a wide open field.

I confess to having been worried there, like I was 8 years ago.

I think we're in even better shape to defeat Clinton this time around.

Cute family!

[TBF]

42. Hillary has already met with him -

but I would far prefer to see him as Bernie's running mate!!

He's definitely an up and comer to watch.

[Angry Dragon]

40. I do not understand the Hillary love .............

[MaggieD]

43. Well so far you've only got...

... two choices. And one is an (I) and a socialist. So I understand it perfectly.

[morningfog]

48. There are two candidates in the Democratic Primary thus far.

Each are running as Democrats.

[MaggieD]

49. I'm guessing lots of party loyalist....

Don't see it that way, based on the polling thus far. If he really wanted to be "known as a Democrat" he would change the (I) to a (D). Until then don't expect a big bandwagon for him among party loyalists. And maybe not even then, given that the "socialist" moniker makes him all but unelectable in reality world.

[morningfog]

50. He is not registered as an (I).

Who are these "party loyalists" of which you speak?

Do you mean to suggest that there are Democrats who care more about a label than about positions and issues?

What are Sen. Sanders' positions which are antithetical to the Democratic Party?

[MaggieD]

51. Doesn't matter - he PROMOTES himself as an (I)

And by the way, the fact that is doesn't change it is your biggest clue that is not in it to win it. He's not stupid. He knows how it works in a primary contest.

[morningfog]

52. If all he previsouly has done is PROMOTES himself as an (I), he is now PROMOTING

himself as a (D). He is running as a Democrat in the Democratic Primary for the Democratic nomination for President.

Now, who are these "party loyalists" of which you speak?

Do you mean to suggest that there are Democrats who care more about a label than about positions and issues?

What are Sen. Sanders' positions which are antithetical to the Democratic Party?

[MaggieD]

53. No he isn't

Again, he knows he cannot capture the majority party loyalists with an (I) after his name. Especially after the Nader bullshit. He is an unserious candidate. His FREE FREE FREE College! off the backs of people's 401K funds is proof enough of that.

In his own words, when asked if a republican congress will go along with that... A: "No, of course not."

Who is a party loyalist? People like me, who vote for (D)s, not (I)s, not (R)s, not (L)s, etc.

Why is that important? Because we see the bigger picture. We want the Dem agenda promoted; we want a majority in congress (even if it takes some DINOs to get one); we want bad (R) bills suppressed and buried, and good (D) bills to get to a vote. We want liberal judicial appointments. And we want an electable candidate so that even if we have an (R) majority in congress we can wield the veto pen.

[morningfog]

54. And?

Are you one of those Democrats who care more about a label than about positions and issues?

What are Sen. Sanders' positions which are antithetical to the Democratic Party?

[MADem]

56. Here are the facts as to Sanders' party registration.

http://www.pressherald.com/2015/05/03/bernie-sanders-backtracks-on-party-registration/


He hasn't done it yet, but he will so do, if needs must.

Bernie Sanders backtracks on party registration
The Vermont senator now says he will register as a Democrat if necessary to compete in the party's primary in all 50 states.
BY AARON C. DAVISTHE WASHINGTON POST

MANCHESTER, N.H. — Bernie Sanders, Congress’s longest-serving independent and a self-described socialist, backtracked just two days into his presidential campaign Saturday, saying he would register as a Democrat if needed to compete in the party’s primary in all 50 states.

Announcing his candidacy Thursday outside the U.S. Capitol, the Vermont senator rejected any suggestion that he register as a Democrat. “No,” Sanders said, “I’m an independent.”


But a day later, questions surfaced in New Hampshire about whether he would be eligible to compete next year in the nation’s first presidential primary. New Hampshire requires candidates to fill out a form declaring party registration. Sanders also rejected the Democratic nomination for Senate twice in Vermont.

More at the link.

So--bottom line: he is an independent. He WILL register as a Democrt if that is what he has to do to get on the Democratic Primary ballot. He hasn't done that yet.