Bernie Sanders Nearly Beats Hillary in WI Straw Poll
49 to 41.
Hillary Clinton’s made-to-order nomination for 2016 may not be as safe as she thought.
Once again, many people in the far left base of the Democratic Party, i.e. primary voters, are rejecting Mrs. Clinton for a progressive upstart from the senate.
Jonathan Topaz of Politico:
Wisconsin straw poll surprise: A narrow Clinton win
Hillary Clinton is crushing the rest of the Democratic presidential field in national polls, but over the weekend, in a Wisconsin straw poll, there was reason to give the Clinton camp pause and the Bernie Sanders camp hope — Sanders scored a strong second-place finish with 41 percent of the vote, to Clinton’s 49 percent.
The Vermont senator, a self-described democratic socialist and a long shot for the White House, received 208 of 511 delegate votes at the Wisconsin Democratic Party convention in Milwaukee on Saturday, while Clinton won votes from 252 of the delegates, leaving her just short of a majority.
Vice President Joe Biden and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, who announced his candidacy late last month, each received 3 percent of the vote. Former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, who is considering a bid, won 2 percent, while former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee, who announced his long-shot candidacy last week, received 1 percent.
Professor Jacobson noted this story yesterday on Twitter:
Wisconsin straw poll surprise: @BernieSanders almost beats @HillaryClinton http://t.co/lUELKOUfjs >> Clinton support mile wide, inch deep
— Legal Insurrection (@LegInsurrection) June 8, 2015
Sanders isn’t likely to get the Democratic nomination but it sure is fun to watch him try.
What about Hillary vs. Republicans?
Here’s a column from Byron York of the Washington Examiner you may have missed over the weekend:
Hillary’s huge lead over the GOP? Maybe it never existed
Through all of Hillary Clinton’s recent troubles — emails, foundation, Benghazi — Democrats have taken comfort in their all-but-assured nominee’s formidable lead over top Republicans in head-to-head matchups. Now that lead is shrinking, and the Democratic comfort level is falling along with it.
But it’s possible Clinton’s big lead was never as big as Democrats thought. Yes, some of the margins looked enormous:
* A CNN poll in March showed Clinton up by 15 points over Republican Jeb Bush, 13 points over Marco Rubio, 11 points over Rand Paul, and 15 points over Scott Walker.
* An ABC News poll in March showed Clinton up by 15 points over Rubio, 14 points over Walker, and 13 points over Bush.
* A CNN poll in April showed Clinton up by 22 points over Walker, 19 points over Paul, 14 points over Rubio, and 17 points over Bush.
Big margins. But at the same time, at least one other poll — by Public Policy Polling, the Democratic polling firm — showed Clinton with much more modest leads over her GOP rivals. A PPP survey in late February showed Clinton with an eight-point lead over Walker, a seven-point lead over Rubio, a seven-point lead over Paul, and a 10-point lead over Bush.
Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard also wrote of The Coming Democratic Panic.
Ready for Hillary?
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Take away quote: “Hillary’s huge lead over the GOP? Maybe it never existed” LOL
Fundamental transformation indeed. Remember when the Dims would get all apoplectic when accused of being socialists? Now they’re openly backing self-avowed socialists. Can we have our conservative backlash yet?
“But y’ar a socialist (communist) Blanche Dim, but y’ar!”
Does anyone know how the voting was executed?
Was an ID required to vote?
Were undocumented Democrats denied the right to vote?
Was there a mandatory 20-day voting period or was it just one day?
Were Republicans or Independents disenfranchised from participating?
This was not a public straw poll, but one taken of delegates to the state Democratic convention. It’s not binding, but it is telling that these party leaders and activists are not jumping aboard the Hillary bandwagon.
Democrats are scared to death. They aren’t afraid of any of our candidates, they are afraid of their own. And state and local people understand what effect the reaction against the party’s perceived leader can have on the down-ticket.
Hillary was never the frontrunner in 2007-08 or this cycle because she is so popular or such a strong candidate. She has been there because Democrats figured they had no one else. If they can find someone, they will leave her. Preferably someone with high cheekbones.
How many countries must come to ruins before First World Americans understand that ‘Socialism’ is just lipstick on the gaping mouth of 3rd World Totalitarianism, death and economic ruin?!
What will it take to explain to the ingrate, dumb asses born in this country that Cambodia’s Killing Fields, Vietnam’s Boat People exodus, Lao’s Hmong massacre (to name a few) were engineered by Bernie Sander-like Asian grandpas who also used the veneer of ‘Socialism’ to popularize their quest for political power?
Where are the more incriminating straw polls that show a person’s infatuation with Socialism always corresponds with a person’s moral narcissism, wilful illiteracy in economics and history?
Communism by any other name (socialism or progressivism) stinks just the same!
They never mention the history when selling their program to new generations. It wouldn’t help.
And to those hearing the policies for the first time, the lure of great things being done and all with other people’s money is very strong. Young people are attacking conservatives on the internet before they ever realize they’ve been programmed.
What this was, was ‘not Hillary’. The takeaway here is that, while Clinton polls as inevitable when there is no declared opponent, huge numbers of Democrats will vote for anybody but Clinton, even an ancient white male socialist from New England.
Imagine if she faced a genuine opponent? She’d be losing big time already.
“A self described democratic socialist”–translate–an honest Democrat.
The voters were all delegates to the Wisconsin Democrat convention. Even Minnesota Democrats tend to find their brethren to the east a bit to far to the left.
Ouch. The crazy Socialist against the corrupt, secretive Socialist.
This is getting more interesting and hilarious by the day.
Wonder if this will be a repeat of the disparity of the candidates leading to the Reagan-Mondale landslide. Or a Democrat Convention full of Baltimore- and Ferguson-like riots such as those preceding the Nixon-McGovern landslide.
What happens if by some miracle, Sanders wins the primary in terms of votes, but the DNC still doesn’t endorse him, preferring to give Hillary the nod?
a) Is the DNC legally allowed to do that?
b) What irreparable harm would that inflict on the DNC and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz?
c) Does everyone have enough popcorn for all this? 😉
In 2008, neither Obama nor Hillary won a majority of delegates, so the nomination depended upon the Super Delegates, party activists, bosses, fundraisers, and donors to pick the nominee. Obama preemptively struck by claiming that since he had earned (very slightly) more votes overall, he deserved the support of Super Delegates. The veiled threat was to complain about racism.
But if anyone earns a clear majority of delegates, they cannot be denied.