Hillary Clinton Holds Eight-Point Edge Over Bernie Sanders in Massachusetts

[DemocratSinceBirth]

A poll on released Sunday shows Hillary Clinton having an advantage of eight percentage points over Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont in the Massachusetts Democratic primary on Tuesday.

The poll, by Suffolk University, showed Mrs. Clinton with 50 percent of likely Democratic voters, while Mr. Sanders had 42 percent. The poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points.

A poll by MassINC Polling Group released on Friday, before Mrs. Clinton’s decisive victory in the South Carolina primary on Saturday, showed Mrs. Clinton having an edge of five percentage points.

The Suffolk poll, which surveyed 500 people, was conducted from Thursday to Saturday.

Both candidates are campaigning in the state on Monday.


http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/28/hillary-clinton-holds-eight-point-edge-over-bernie-sanders-in-massachusetts/

[vdogg]

1. Must be all those AA's in Massachusetts voting against their interests.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. I can't go there but MA is more diverse than NH and IA. I will savor the victory

I can't go there but MA is more diverse than NH and IA. I will savor the victory because it will shatter a lot of myths.


http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/25000.html

[vdogg]

15. 8.3% AA

Even less than the national average, but yes, more diverse than NH. Just wondering what the excuse will be if this goes for Hillary. They can only go to that well but so many times.

[Cavallo]

37. Okay, so I don't actually know how this works

How does she consolidate 42% of her base when they aren't in the catagory of just likes the other guy more? They actually want what she stands for out of government - goldman sachs, jp morgan chase, citigroup etc.

I don't see how that will change if she gets the DNC vote.

I can see us losing the supreme court and the right to choose over this.

I don't think Hillary supporters get it. I don't think their dislike for Bernie has any substance past the man himself. Hillary is perfectly likable, it's everything behind her that is the problem. I think the dislike for the candidates is not equal.

[vdogg]

39. That makes both of us

I simply can't understand a dem that would vote Trump. Sit out the election, yes, I can see that but I strongly disagree with it. But vote for Trump? That's like 2+2 =6, just doesn't add up. There would be nothing I could say to someone who truly views trump as an option over a democrat who voted with Bernie over 93% of the time.

[Cavallo]

40. I agree. And, Trump is fascist.

I take him at his word and everyone else seems to ignore it. I believe he would do round ups.

removed.

[Cavallo]

41. " democrat who voted with Bernie over 93% of the time."

I will take that to work with me tomorrow. Good point.

[MrWendel]

5. According to one poster...

it must be all that lead in the water.

[vdogg]

16. Haha

Already keying up the Michigan excuse I see. This is gonna be glorious.

[olegramps]

48. Sanders may very well not win the nomination, but he has been a powerful voice in the process:

If Sanders does not get the nomination, he has achieved a great deal in awaking the nation to the problem of massive transfer of wealth that is crushing the working class and leaving them little hope for any future.

Perhaps Hilary doesn't excite the progressive wing of the party, but I am convinced that she would be a effective leader and be able to make some advances for the working class. I just hope that many of the progressives that thirst for real change can temper their frustration with the system to realize that it can not, and will not be easily changed. Everything that Sander says is absolutely correct, but that doesn't make it realistic.

The Republicans have a dedicated constituency and can effectively block any significant changes even when they are diametrically opposed to the own wellbeing. It is a case of massive mind control by the power voice of the right wing propagandists who they listen to 24/7 to the exclusion of any meaningful challenge to the utter nonsense theirs master spew.

It would be difficult for me to believe fifty years ago that this could actually be the case. And it will not be overcome any time in the near future. Just to take into account the growth of evangelical schools that literally brain wash hundreds of thousands of kids each day is enough to scare the hell of any thinking person. These people are nothing more than zombies who vote as they are told and shun anyone who doesn't share their warped religious beliefs. They are little different than the Islamic extremists who believe they are on a divinely inspired mission to save mankind. We are being challenged by zealots who are dedicated and determined.

[-none]

2. Maybe if they would stop counting the super delegates as a given Hillary would not seem far ahead.

But instead, either neck and neck or even losing to Bernie.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. Pretty hard to say that the candidate...

Pretty hard to argue that the candidate coming off the largest victory in a contested primary in the annals of American political history is being boosted by super delegates, just sayin...

[BlueMTexpat]

7. ????

After SC, she already has a substantial lead in pledged delegates. That is, even without SDs being counted, she is NEITHER neck and neck NOR is she losing - except in some alternate universe.

That lead in pledged delegates will continue to grow.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. Bernie is 1-3...I don't think the person with 3 is losing./nt

[BlueMTexpat]

10. Exactly. eom

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. Odd post./nt

[timmymoff]

30. actually she is losing

She is losing the block of voters she needs to win. Bernie supporters. She and the DNC are losing a valuable opportunity, but that's ok, she can get the republican crossover vote to fill the exodus from the democratic party. Her Bluedog credentials should help her gain the gop voters she will need.

[NanceGreggs]

36. Hate to break it to you, sunshine ...

... but not all Bernie supporters are rabid anti-Hillaryites like the people you encounter here on DU.

Many BS supporters simply prefer Bernie to HRC in the primaries - but they don't see Hillary as the anti-Christ, and they don't see Bernie as the last hope of saving the nation from ruin.

When Bernie loses, they will back the Democratic nominee without hesitation.

As we've witnessed in the first four primary contests, those previously disenchanted first-time voters who were going to show up in droves for Bernie never arrived. That's because BS supporters have far over-estimated their numbers from the start. They looked at last summer's BS rally attendances and on-line polls, and assumed there was a "block of voters" so massive, Hillary would be easily defeated. But as we can all see, that isn't the case.

As for "she can get the republican crossover vote", that's a rather ironic statement, given that we've been told by BS supporters from the outset that he would get GOP votes because his "message" was so inspiring, Republican voters would cross party lines to vote for him.

Bernie supporters do not represent a "block of voters" who will refuse to vote for Hillary. After you peel away those who will vote for the (D) over the (R) in any case, and those who preferred BS but will get behind that nominee wholeheartedly when all is said and done, what you've got left is a bunch of my-way-or-the highway whiners who probably don't vote anyway, simply because the "my candidate-of-choice didn't get the nomination" excuse is one they've trotted out in every election.

[timmymoff]

47. Thank you for being so gentle, sugarplum

Now that we have the insults out of the way, fancypants we can get down to brass tacks. I certainly did not post all Bernie sanders supporters hated Hillary. When I mentioned she can get the crossover votes I meant because well, she is a bluedog democrat and not progressive or liberal by a long shot. So that must've been sarcasm you missed. If she loses 10% of the Bernie supporters she is in trouble. I'm betting the number would be more like 25% So yes, they do represent a block of voters, a significant one. I liked Hillary, then Bernie sanders joined the picture. So I now have a choice between a true liberal and a bluedog democrat with more flip flops than a prison shower. The problem across America is simple. A ton of people aren't content with SSDD. Hillary is just that. Good luck in November if she wins the nomination.

In the spirit of working together I was wondering if you could get your fellow Hillary supporters to join us Sanders supporters in calling for the speech transcripts. In a democracy we have to be informed about our candidates so I would say full transparency of such an issue would be important to you. You would want to know if she promised efforts to push favorable legislation, wouldn't you? As we move toward November and knowing you will need the sanders voters to win this would show an excellent effort to work together for the common goal of a more informed populace. This could also remove some of the doubt. it's a win/ win. I am looking forward to your cooperation and efforts in joining our call to see the transcripts.

[NanceGreggs]

52. I have to assume you're new to politics ...

... if you think that Hillary would ever "promise efforts to push favorable legislation" to GS. She has lived her entire adult life in a fishbowl, and is well aware that her every word has the potential to be turned against her. If you think she stood up in front of a roomful of GS attendees and said, "Wink-wink, nudge-nudge, you know I've got your back, guys", you must be incredibly naive.

As for the transcripts, they weren't even a blip on anyone's radar until it started to become apparent that Bernie's chances of winning were narrowing by the day. No one even mentioned transcripts when Bernie was riding high last summer, garnering support, getting good poll numbers, hosting rallies. It was only when his defeat started looking imminent that the transcripts became an issue.

BSers are hoping there is a "gotcha" comment that would so damage HRC, her numbers would do down and Bernie would benefit from the fallout. There is no other reason for demanding them - and that's been transparent all along.

Bernie can't win the nomination on his own merits - that is now obvious. So he's left with pinning his hopes on transcripts that he thinks might damage his opponent. It's the only prayer he has left.

I think it would be more relevant if Bernie disclosed what he knew and when he knew it about his campaign stealing HRC's computer data, using the logos of organizations that had endorsed HRC in an attempt to mislead people into thinking they'd endorsed him, and posing as union members to gain access to "union members only" areas in order to get their votes.

Those things happened DURING the campaign while BS was a candidate; Hillary's speeches happened before the campaign, and when she was a private citizen.

So if you're truly concerned about "being informed about our candidates" and "full transparency", I believe that being informed about what went on within the Bernie campaign would be far more relevant than anything Hillary said before her campaign ever started.

[timmymoff]

53. Are you hoping there isn't a gotcha?

Or would you rather wait until October?

[NanceGreggs]

55. I know there isn't a "gotcha".

She's too astute, too aware of her every word and how it is perceived, how open to "interpretation" it is, how it can be twisted to suit someone else's agenda.

Whether you love her, hate her, or are indifferent to her, there is no denying that HRC's self-awareness while she lives in the fishbowl has been honed to a fine art over decades.

In view of that reality, it is ridiculous to think she would have indulged in potential "gotcha" remarks in front of hundreds of people.

Wait until October? The ONLY copies of Hillary's transcripts are in her possession, as per her speaking engagement contracts. So unless she releases them herself, no one will have access to them in order to spring them in October, or at any other time.

[timmymoff]

56. then lets get the transcripts out there

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear... isn't that the mantra of the private prison supporting voters?

[NanceGreggs]

57. Actually, I think that was the mantra ...

... of the Bush administration during the TSA warrantless wire-tapping controversy.

And it's as ridiculous a concept now as it was then. Just because I have "nothing to hide" doesn't mean I owe it to you, or anyone else, to prove it.

[timmymoff]

58. oh

My bad, I sometimes confuse the Clinton's tough on crime standards to the right wings. I'm not far off. I thought she would want transparency and all doubts removed, but being content with not doing so , should mean she is content with losing the before mentioned voting block.

[NanceGreggs]

59. As I pointed out ...

... at the outset of our exchange, when you peel off the BS supporters who will vote for Hillary in the GE, and the crybabies who probably wouldn't vote in any event, that "voting block" is nowhere near as large as you seem to think it is.

Don't forget we were all told we'd be literally stunned by the massive numbers of BS supporters who would come out to vote for him in the primaries. Didn't exactly turn out that way, did it?

[timmymoff]

60. What has hillary won?

Iowa by 1/2 percent Nevada by a small amount and South Carolina in which she or Bernie wouldn't win. Wouldn't be counting my chickens yet, But again if you are content with losing 25 % of Bernie's voters, Please proceed Madame Secretary. I'd show the transcripts if I knew lower turnout was going to hurt my cause.

[timmymoff]

54. we can look into that as well

We should start with the transcripts so none of us feel duped in October. Sure would hate a president Trump because we didn't know something. But in all reality she hasn't been a private citizen. I wonder what $225,000 buys someone? Don't you? Or in all you life have you always said " man money in politics is a great thing and every single candidate is pure as new fallen snow. " lol You need them kept secret, for you and her.

[vdogg]

18. She's winning the popular vote.

Funny how Sanders supporters no longer take that into account.

[alcibiades_mystery]

20. Not the *right* voters, you know

[-none]

22. This is just getting started.

There are many states to go yet. States that vote in primary elections and don't use caucuses that can be controlled.

[JaneyVee]

6. Wait until voters of MA get to know Bernie.

[Jitter65]

11. Yes, Hillary will pick up some supporters for sure. nt

[NurseJackie]

14. Ha! :-D

[Fla Dem]

46. They only have until Tuesday. nt

[mcar]

8. Nice!

[Koinos]

13. Losing Massachusetts

Losing Massachusetts would be a massive blow to Sanders' campaign for so many reasons.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. 538 hasn't updated yet but the last three polls are tie, +5, and +8, clearly a trend

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/massachusetts-democratic/

[vdogg]

19. But but

According to Lawrence Odonnel, Hillary's poll numbers never go up.

[Koinos]

21. Late trends don't usually reverse themselves.

Massachusetts appears to be making up its mind.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. I was looking at the predictions/gaming markets and HRC is at 80 in MA

If you gave me a thousand dollars and said I can only keep it if I predict the winner it would be Hillary...

I suspect she wins every primary and caucus on Tuesday with the exception of Vermont and possibly Colorado...


We'll see...

[Koinos]

26. 538 gave Clinton 79% this morning.

I wouldn't bet against her winning in Massachusetts.

As you say, we'll see.

[DCBob]

24. That great news for the Hillary team..

not so good for Bernie... in fact that probably ends all speculation of him actually winning this thing.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. I just skimmed the Predictit markets.

Last edited Sun Feb 28, 2016, 09:25 PM - Edit history (2)

The only state he is leading in on Tuesday is Vermont.

The bandwagon effect seems to be kicking in:

The bandwagon effect is a psychological phenomenon whereby people do something primarily because other people are doing it, regardless of their own beliefs, which they may ignore or override. The bandwagon effect has wide implications, but is commonly seen in politics and consumer behavior

Wow!!!

[Koinos]

31. Looks that way, DemocratSinceBirth.

[DCBob]

35. That would be something if Bernie only won VT on Tuesday.

Which is entirely possible given the trends.

[MisterP]

25. Coakley FTW!

[SidDithers]

28. Bank on it...nt

Sid

[Koinos]

29. If, by chance, Clinton wins Massachusetts ...

Will Elizabeth Warren get the blame for not endorsing Sanders?

I sure hope not.

[Ed Suspicious]

32. Your concern is concerning.

[Koinos]

34. Your suspiciousness is suspicious.

I am only speculating. I have no horse in this race.

[KingFlorez]

33. Didn't think about that

Warren will probably get grief for not endorsing Sanders. Somebody always has to be to blame. Always.

[oasis]

38. No doubt Warren has already gotten a ton of nasty grams from the more

zealous Bernie supporters. "You have let down your fellow progressives"

[LexVegas]

42. Who are they gonna blame for that one?nt

[elmac]

43. All I can say is

I prefer home grown peanuts over Walmart peanuts.

[Recursion]

44. Obama had high hopes for MA in 2008, and was disappointed

Clinton has a lot of support there.

[timmymoff]

50. No doubt

I'm betting the Romney's will vote for her, she is their type of leader!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

63. Massachusetts has a closed primary so Republicans can't vote in it.

What will be the excuse/explanation when he loses every caucus and primary on Tuesday night except Vermont?

All Romney voters?


Thank you in advance.

[Attorney in Texas]

49. Here is Pollster's aggregate polling graph for Massachusetts:

If you drop out the robo-call polls, the race is still tied:



There are too few polls for RCP to graph it, but their aggregation is similarly too close to call, and I'm happy with that.

Why should I be happy with a tie? Well, the same firms polling in Massachusetts also polled New Hampshire. Clinton's numbers based -- in large part -- on Suffolk polling, and Suffolk was biased 13% in favor of Clinton in New Hampshire. Clinton's numbers are also based on WBUR polling which was biased for Clinton by 7%.

I'm losing no sleep over Massachusetts. If you want to believe she's winning in Massachusetts, that's causes me no grief.

We'll know the truth soon enough.

[merrily]

51. O, my. Guess I may as well not vote in the primary then!

[Koinos]

62. You'll be voting at the only polls that really count.

[Koinos]

61. Just checked 538 again for their latest update...

538 gives Clinton an 88% chance at this point:

"According to our latest polls-plus forecast, Hillary Clinton has an 88% chance of winning the Massachusetts primary."

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/massachusetts-democratic/