Biden-Or-Busters Are Still a Problem

A few months ago, statistically illiterate people jumped on one month of polling to declare that sexist ‘Bernie-or-Busters’ who hate Elizabeth Warren were going to cost Democrats the 2020 election (full disclosure: were I to vote today, I would vote for Warren). That was based on an Emerson poll, which is released monthly. In the poll, they ask voters whom they plan to vote for in the primary, and then also ask them in a race between Trump and [Democratic candidate], whom they would vote for (in one month’s poll, a quarter of Sanders supporters said they would vote for Trump over Warren. BOOGA! BOOGA!).

Well, once again, we see in July’s poll (to the extent the Emerson poll should be believed) that Biden supporters really don’t like Warren: 20/143 Biden voters said they would vote for Trump over Warren. By contrast, Sanders supporters are now the second most loyal to Warren, with 71/74 Sanders supporters saying they would vote for Warren over Trump (69/70 Warren supporters say they would support Warren over Trump). Chapo Trap House notwithstanding, many Sanders supporters are either what used to be called liberal Democrats or what used to be called labor Democrats. Meanwhile, if Biden doesn’t win, moderate Democrats are going to have to do the hard work to reach out to their co-travelers and bring the Biden-or-Busters home.

Everything is stupid.

This entry was posted in Democrats, Voting. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Biden-Or-Busters Are Still a Problem

  1. Zachary Smith says:

    **** to the extent the Emerson poll should be believed) ****
    So far as I’m concerned, Not At All. Don’t get me wrong – properly done polls are almost always highly accurate indications of opinions. But not all are “properly done”, and not all will be reported accurately, if at all. A few days ago I read a blogger remarking how this time in 2015 Trump was polling right at 1%. Can’t find that now, but a quick search did locate this prediction:

    *** Think Trump has a chance to snag GOP nomination? Analysis gives him just 1% ***
    By Daniella Diaz, CNN
    Updated 4:14 PM ET, Thu July 9, 2015

    Somebody hadn’t yet gotten the word Hillary & Company planned to “elevate” Trump to become her opponent. Then from 2007:

    **** Sen. John McCain has fallen to single-digit numbers among Republicans while Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has edged into the lead of Democrats in a new poll of Iowa’s first-in-the-nation caucus voters.
    McCain, once the GOP presidential front-runner, is now tied with Sen. Sam Brownback for fifth place, getting just 6 percent. ****

    Reports of how the candidates are (supposedly) doing are neat ways the Power Elites have of manipulating our elections. If somebody with a few billion dollars got the urge to make one of the bottom 1% Democrats into a contender, it would happen. Sort of off topic, but I’m still in awe how British Intelligence turned the newly minted Republican Wendell Wilkie (he’d been a registered Democrat until a few weeks/months earlier) into Roosevelt’s opposition in the 1940 election. Just as happens in modern times with the Apartheid State, no matter what happened with the voting, Britain won.

    *** (full disclosure: were I to vote today, I would vote for Warren) ***
    I’d vote for most of the candidates with the exception of Biden. What we have now is a worthless and disaster of a POTUS with an (R) by his name. I see no reason to swap for the same quality of President who bears a (D) instead.

    Among the candidates permitted to have good polling numbers or adequate press coverage, I see Sanders as the best of that very mediocre lot. IMO he is far more conservative than anybody believes, but if the man somehow became the Democratic candidate with a genuine progressive (Gabbard?) as VP, the resulting landslide would be of historic proportions. Which is why Pelosi will do whatever it takes to prevent that outcome.

Comments are closed.