all GE season long.
of the survey showed it was. People are so quick to jump on anything that supports their candidate they simply don't check the facts.
That is true about any candidate's supporters sometimes, but lately it has been a big failure of Clinton camp supporters: unknowingly posting dated, old articles; regurgitating Jon Ralston's false claims about violence at the NV convention without verifying their accuracy by simply viewing the dozens of internet accessible videos of the convention; not noticing that all the main media outlets they are touting as believable regarding the NV convention all used the same, single source-Ralston; not checking further info at links; not carefully reading an article or post (at least 3 Clinton supporters did that right here in my thread!), not analyzing data to see if it supports conclusions, etc.
It is difficult as it is to communicate in this type of setting, and these failures just contribute to that difficulty.
To be fair, they were relying on a statement made in a CBS News article that played fast and loose with a statistic culled from their own polling survey. The CBS News/New York Times survey in question was taken between May 13th and 17th. In the survey made available to the public, some of the questions viewable are too imprecise to draw accurate conclusions from. In addition, some of the survey questions were withheld from the public. Also, the results of survey questions that were withheld, while reported on in the article, weren't clearly presented. And the totals of respondents who were supporters of each candidate weren't made available to the public. All of this added to the confusion and may have contributed to the misleading 72% figure making the rounds lately.
That 72% figure is misleading for several reasons. Firstly, the CBS News article that reported the results of that survey made it clear that, when not restricted to a choice of voting ONLY for Clinton or Trump, 8 out of 10 of ALL Sanders supporters surveyed who were registered voters (not just those who were allowed to/participated in the Democratic Primary) wanted to be able to choose another option (write-in, not vote, or vote 3rd party/Independent candidate)! Surprisingly, a majority of both Democrats and Independents also did not want to be limited to voting only for either Clinton or Trump!
Still, most voters are not content with the options of Clinton and Trump: while 46 percent of registered voters would be satisfied with that match-up, 52 percent want more choices. Most Republicans (55 percent) are satisfied, while most Democrats (52 percent) and independents (60 percent) are not. Eight in 10 Sanders supporters would like other choices.
(survey at bottom of article)
Q28 If Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are the two parties' candidates for the presidency in November, would you be satisfied choosing between them or would you like other choices?
** REGISTERED VOTERS **
---------------------Total Rep Dem Inp
Other choices--------- 52---43---52---60
Don't know/No answer---1----2----1----1
Secondly, since the actual questions were withheld from the published survey, it wasn't immediately obvious to whom that 72% figure referred. Here is the wording from the CBS News' article:
So, based on the presentation of the Republican response that appears just before it, the reference to Sanders supporters on the "Democratic side" probably pertains only to his supporters who voted in the Democratic Primary. Left out of that 72% figure, then, are the Sanders supporters who either weren't allowed to vote in closed primaries or who simply didn't vote in the primaries. They would be enumerated in the survey category labeled "Registered Voter-Independents" (calculated total=359*). We know that during this campaign season, that has been a significant amount of his supporters who are registered to vote, and their frustrations over that may partially influence what they choose to do with their vote in the GE.
A New York Times article I found is more clear about from whom the responses to that question were gathered:
I dont support her mostly because I dont trust her, said Will Lambert, 32, an engineer in Denver who supports Mr. Sanders. If she became the nominee, I might vote for a third-party candidate, like the Green Party, or I might do a write-in for Bernie. Im still not 100 percent decided, because I dont necessarily want to see Trump elected, either. Its a slim possibility that I might vote for Hillary, but then, Im at a point in my life where I just dont want to vote for the lesser of two evils.
Thirdly, the number of respondents broken down by which candidate they supported was withheld from the survey presented to the public. So, the total number of Sanders supporters, as well as the number of Sanders supporters broken down by party (Democratic, Independent, Republican) is unclear. It makes a difference whether the poll is referring to 72% of 200 Sanders supporters or 72% of just 10 Sanders supporters.
Party Unity and the November Election
May 13-17, 2016
Total Registered Voters---------------1,109---------1,031
Registered Voters -Republicans---------345-----------300
Registered Voters-Democrats---------- 362-----------362
Registered Voters- Independents-------402-----------368
Republican Primary Voters--------------379-----------315
Democratic Primary Voters-------------371-----------357
Lastly, that 72% of his supporters who voted in the Democratic primaries and indicated that they would vote for Hillary, if the only choice they were allowed was to either vote for her or for Trump, has probably decreased significantly in this last week. The survey for this poll began May 13th, the day before the contentious Nevada State Democratic Convention, and ended May 17th, while the Hillary campaign was falsely maligning Sanders supporters with allegation of violence at the convention, but before the those allegations were debunked as lies. Negative impressions of the Democratic party by Sanders supporters have soared since then and previous intentions by some of his supporters to resignedly vote for the Democratic nominee have undoubtedly hardened into resolve to not only NOT EVER vote for Hillary, but to now leave the Democratic party.
and neither are Clinton supporters. Stop your extreme hyperbolic nonsense. It really is unbecoming on posters here.
Under your definition, all the Clinton DUers who have been lying about violence occurring at the Nevada Convention on Saturday (totally debunked lie) are now Teabaggers because they:
1. repeated the lie,
2. at high volumes
3. and insisted that made it true.
See how that works.
I believe they ARE scared, and rightfully so, about the effect Bernie may be having on her GE numbers within the Dem party and among liberal Independents, the perception that she is a weak candidate due to her inability to close the deal, the public's negative perception of her, and the impact all of that could have on her GE war chest. Those fears are undoubtedly tempered by their need to use Bernie as a buffer for the next 2 months.
Quite a conundrum for Clinton. You can see the Weathervane camp is all over the map trying to figure out an answer to the Bernie problem.
So strong that all the people, all the money, all the resources the Clinton Dynasty has invested in her coronation can not stop it now.
The 'who' in your question has been rendered ineffectual and so the answer to your question isn't worth knowing, wouldn't you say?
In the face of almost zero positive mentions of Sanders for weeks by the media.
And with Lange, Reid, and Clinton manufacturing claims of violence conducted by Sanders' supporters at the NV Convention.
Sanders pulled in HALF of the Kentucky Democratic Base! Woo hoo!
Shots were fired into Bernie Sander's Nevada Campaign Office - staff living quarters were ransacked.
Now that is REAL violence, and backed up by real evidence, unlike Jon Ralston's circulated rumors of.. wait for it... Chair Throwing!
Profile InformationGender: Do not display
Home country: USA
Member since: Mon Jan 16, 2006, 07:55 PM
Number of posts: 7,318