RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Excerpt: "Hillary Clinton's Iowa edge is gone. Bernie Sanders leads the former secretary of state for the first time among Iowa Democrats likely to caucus in February, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll unveiled Thursday morning - the latest in a string of surveys that show a tightening race in the Hawkeye State."

Bernie Sanders. (photo: Adam Bettcher/Getty Images)
Bernie Sanders. (photo: Adam Bettcher/Getty Images)


Bernie Sanders Overtakes Hillary Clinton in Iowa

By Gabriel Debenedetti and Nick Gass, Politico

11 September 15

 

People close to Clinton's camp have recently been warning that the Vermont senator could win Iowa and New Hampshire.

illary Clinton's Iowa edge is gone.

Bernie Sanders leads the former secretary of state for the first time among Iowa Democrats likely to caucus in February, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll unveiled Thursday morning — the latest in a string of surveys that show a tightening race in the Hawkeye State.

The Vermont senator's advantage is within the margin of error — he took 41 percent compared with Clinton's 40 percent — and another 12 percent said they would support Vice President Joe Biden, who has yet to declare his 2016 intentions. (Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley picked up 3 percent, while no other candidate registered above that mark, and 3 percent were undecided.)

But the shift is a significant one, coming on the heels of polls showing Sanders edging Clinton in New Hampshire, too. Together, the results suggest a candidate reeling from the controversy over her emails and struggling to put down a rebellion on her left flank.

While Clinton remains the front-runner for the nomination, and pollsters caution against reading too much into one survey, the results reflect serious movement for Sanders: He trailed the former secretary of state by a 52-33 percent margin in Quinnipiac's last poll of Iowa's likely Democratic caucus-goers, in July.

Clinton fared better in the latest NBC News/Marist polling of Iowa released last weekend, drawing 48 percent to Sanders' 37 percent. (With the vice president in the mix, Clinton stood at 38 percent, Sanders at 27 percent and Biden at 20 percent.)

Thursday's less favorable results are unlikely to surprise many in her Brooklyn headquarters: People close to Clinton's camp have recently been warning that Sanders could win both Iowa and New Hampshire before her massive organizing infrastructure kicks in among the next wave of nominating contests on March 1, when Clinton hopes to sew up the nomination. Her allies have also long noted that no non-incumbent candidate has broken the 50 percent mark in the Iowa caucuses other than Iowa's own Tom Harkin in 1992.

But the new Quinnipiac poll is nonetheless likely to send shockwaves through the Democratic establishment, which is increasingly nervous about Clinton's inability to put the email flap to rest, and worried about her seeming difficulty connecting with voters.

The fact that Thursday's result effectively shows a tie will hardly quiet the doubters, particularly given Clinton's heavy investment in her Iowa field operation — she has 78 paid organizers in the state, compared with more than 50 for Sanders — and her consistent lead until now.

A wide range of donors and strategists close to Clinton have expressed their dissatisfaction with her response to questions about her email use. But many in and around the Brooklyn headquarters said on Tuesday and Wednesday that Clinton's forthright apology — she told ABC News' David Muir on Tuesday, "That was a mistake. I’m sorry about that. I take responsibility." — could help stanch the bleeding.

Clinton supporters can take some solace in her enduring advantage among Iowa's women. Clinton leads Sanders to 49 percent to 35 percent among female likely caucus-goers, with 9 percent for Biden; though among men, Sanders leads 49 percent to 28 percent, with 16 percent for Biden.

And she remains popular with Iowa Democrats as a whole. Likely caucus participants said they have a favorable view of Clinton by 76 percent to 20 percent, earning trustworthiness marks of 64 percent to 30 percent and 78 percent to 18 percent saying she cares about their problems. By a count of 92 percent to 7 percent, voters said the former secretary of state has strong leadership qualities and 89 percent said she had the right temperament to tackle an international crisis, compared with 9 percent who did not think so.

But Sanders fares better. He drew a higher net favorability rating of +72 points (78 percent to 6 percent), and a higher share (86 percent to 4 percent) of those saying he is trustworthy than they did of Clinton. By a count of 85 percent to 5 percent, people said the senator cares about their issues. Asked about Sanders' leadership qualities, 76 percent said they were strong, compared to 9 percent who said they were not. On his temperament in times of crisis, voters approved of him by 65 percent to 15 percent.

Biden drew a net favorability rating of +70 points (79 percent to 9 percent), while 91 percent said he is honest and trustworthy, compared to 5 percent who did not think so. By a count of 84 percent to 11 percent, likely caucus-goers said Biden cares about the needs and problems of people like them. On the leadership front, 81 percent to 14 percent gave him high marks, while in terms of his ability to handle crises, 81 percent to 13 percent said they approved of his capabilities.

A majority of those surveyed — 54 percent to 33 percent — said that they would rather the party's candidate have experience in Washington than not.

The poll was conducted in the weeks around Labor Day, from Aug. 27-Sept. 8, surveying 832 likely Democratic caucus participants in the Hawkeye State via landlines and cellphones, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+19 # DPM 2015-09-11 09:39
FEEL THE BERN!!!
 
 
0 # nice2bgreat 2015-09-11 09:47
.
.
Nothing to see here.

No to looky looky.

Just keep swimming, just keep swimming.

Col. Bogey March.
.
 
 
+28 # Adoregon 2015-09-11 11:41
I first met Bernie Sanders in Waterbury, Vermont in the late 60s. He was the "real deal" then and he is the real deal now. He is not a politician like Clinton, he is a person with integrity who is also politically involved.

Bernie Sanders is a test of whether or not [the vast majority of] American voters have the cognitive horsepower to vote in their own best interests.

It is beginning to appear they do.
 
 
+7 # jdd 2015-09-11 09:39
Obama has no intention of letting Sanders replace the stumbling warmonger Clinton as Democratic nominee. Instead the White House is pushing Biden from behind the scenes and has plans C, D, and E as the Times noted yesterday. It should be fun to watching him freak out.
 
 
+27 # gdsharpe 2015-09-11 10:54
Yet even more proof that Obama is not, and never was, the progressive President he claimed to be. He's just another shill for big warmongering corporate interests.
"Transparent", my a**.
Sanders, on the other hand, carries with him a reputation for honesty, real transparency, and real caring for human citizens (as opposed to "person" corporations).
Should he win the nomination, be sure to ask for and vote on absentee ballots to thwart electronic voting machines that are only too easy to manipulate and have no paper trail. The "fix" won't be as obvious as in '02(Georgia)* and '04.
 
 
+19 # gdsharpe 2015-09-11 10:55
*One of the first uses of Diebold electronic voting machines was in the 2000 Georgia Senatorial election. There were numerous documented problems with them, the most glaring and obvious were the voter complaints that the machines displayed Republican candidates as having been chosen where the voter had selected the Democratic candidate. (Somehow the reverse situation never happened.)
The immensely popular Max Cleland(D) was, just days before the election, leading in the opinion polls by an average of 8 to 10 points. Exit polling on election day had him leading by nearly the same margin. Yet, somehow, Saxby Chambliss(R) won the election by a similar margin, strangely.
It is interesting to note that in the '04 election, pre-election day polls and exit polls showed Kerry winning in key states, yet bush won the election in those states. A senior Republican party official suggested that exit polls should be eliminated. This was the first Presidential election in which electronic voting machines were used. After the election, in an amazing show of hubris, Fox News showed how the machines and the counts could be rigged.
 
 
+11 # Radscal 2015-09-11 13:16
And Diebold is now "Dominion Voting Systems."

That's "Dominion" as in the Christian Taliban movement to install Christian governments enforcing Biblical Law.

In their sales pitch to the State offices that use their equipment:

"In today’s election market, Dominion Voting Systems sets itself apart with a commitment to customer service, convenience, and a superior use of technology to provide you with the best possible tools possible to meet your election challenges."

And:

" The only acceptable relationship in this industry is that your success is our success."

http://dominionvoting.com/company

Just as Diebold's founder promised Bush II the 2000 election, Dominion is committed to "your success."
 
 
+3 # gdsharpe 2015-09-11 14:12
Quoting Radscal:

... Just as Diebold's founder promised Bush II the 2000 election, Dominion is committed to "your success."
I don't remember that one, but in 2004 he promised bush that he would "... deliver the State of Ohio to President Bush". Ohio was one of the very contentious states, by the way.
 
 
+7 # Radscal 2015-09-11 19:10
As was Ohio in 2012. Remember when Karl Rove went ballistic at FOX Noise, insisting that "my people in Ohio" were SURE Ohio would go with Romney.

The Anonymous hacker collective claimed they'd hacked into Rove's computer system and blocked his changing the votes.
 
 
+6 # Adoregon 2015-09-11 11:42
Vote by mail as we do in Oregon.
 
 
+10 # bmiluski 2015-09-11 11:49
Unfortunately.. .Adorgon....I voted by mail for Gore, when I lived in Florida. My vote along with thousands of other votes for Gore were never counted.
 
 
+2 # nice2bgreat 2015-09-11 12:47
Quoting bmiluski:
Unfortunately...Adorgon....I voted by mail for Gore, when I lived in Florida. My vote along with thousands of other votes for Gore were never counted.

Listen to bmiluski, everyone -- and you can trust him because he is a Gore-guy -- HIS vote "along with thousands of other votes for Gore were never counted".

And therefore, ...???

Don't vote by mail in Oregon?

... because ... Adorgon's vote (inferred as, for Bernie Sanders), along with "thousands of other votes" by mail will not be counted???

...

Unfortunately ... Adorgon ... I vote by mail all the time, never even knowing whether MY vote gets counted. I lived for two weeks in Florida; the Miami area, no less. And I voted for Gore.

So...
.
 
 
+5 # wrknight 2015-09-11 13:58
Quoting bmiluski:
Unfortunately...Adorgon....I voted by mail for Gore, when I lived in Florida. My vote along with thousands of other votes for Gore were never counted.

Like Oregon, most states aren't like Florida (thank God).
 
 
+7 # Radscal 2015-09-11 13:18
For many years now, my wife and I get absentee ballots in the mail, but we take them to our polling station and drop them in the ballot box ourselves.

For now, it's the best we can do.

Paper ballots, NOT counted by machines is the ONLY way to hold free and transparent elections.
 
 
+2 # nice2bgreat 2015-09-11 09:43
.
Don't panic Hillary-bots... nothing to fret about. Consider that you can just luck your way into supporting Bernie by doing nothing.
.
 
 
+5 # nice2bgreat 2015-09-11 10:07
.
And you can do it gracefully by saying nothing.
.
 
 
-2 # bmiluski 2015-09-11 11:50
I'll do it as gracefully as you ...nice2begreat .
 
 
0 # nice2bgreat 2015-09-11 12:06
Quoting bmiluski:
I'll do it as gracefully as you ...nice2begreat.

You'll do what, bmiluski?
 
 
+2 # CL38 2015-09-11 12:44
This is about Bernie taking the lead in two important states. Not you. Contribute or disappear.
 
 
-1 # bmiluski 2015-09-11 14:29
I'll do IT (your word).
 
 
+1 # Vegan_Girl 2015-09-11 09:57
And why did this article disappear for a day or two?
 
 
-12 # BoomerZoomer 2015-09-11 10:07
Most U.S. citizens under 40 have no idea where Iowa is. (Unless they are immigrants, and have studied for the citizenship test.) Those of us who are over 40 have no idea why anyone cares about Iowa polls, or primary results.
 
 
+7 # gdsharpe 2015-09-11 11:32
Quoting BoomerZoomer:
... Those of us who are over 40 have no idea why anyone cares about Iowa polls, or primary results.
Except, of course, that the primaries are supposed to determine who the ultimate candidates are.
Are you one of those who doesn't vote but still complains?
 
 
+3 # nice2bgreat 2015-09-11 12:01
Quoting BoomerZoomer:
Those of us who are over 40 have no idea why anyone cares about Iowa polls, or primary results.


In order to qualify for a stupid-guy award one must first argue that Primary Elections lack importance.

In fact, as elections go -- in this moment in time, which highlights the inane quality within your comment -- Primaries are the only elections of importance right now; and I would further argue that -- even though it will be amazing if his coat-tails sled in many -- Bernie Sanders Primary Elections are of singular importance ... upon which all else (both) flow and are subordinate... right now.

Primary Elections are the most important candidate elections; they are the only elections with choice(s).
.
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2015-09-11 13:23
This is especially true in CA where we have multiple choices, including a write-in option in the Primaries, but are only permitted to vote for the top two vote-getters from the Primaries in the General Elections.
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2015-09-11 13:21
It is absurd that Iowa has the Presidential election power it does by having the first nomination event. And "caucus?" Sheesh.

I believe we should have a series of "Super Tuesdays," where multiple States VOTE together, all very close together.
 
 
+1 # RLF 2015-09-12 05:55
I think we need to completely revamp the system...Put everyone that wants to on the ballot...take the top two and vote again on them.
 
 
0 # Billy Bob 2015-09-12 08:26
Me too.
 
 
0 # bardphile 2015-09-11 10:14
I suspect that HRC has pretty much written off Iowa and New Hampshire. She'll try to wait out the email thing, then go on the offensive starting in SC.

California might actually be relevant this year!
 
 
+2 # Vegan_Girl 2015-09-11 10:32
Yes and I just found out (from a fellow commenter on RSN) that California banned write-in candidates. Interesting, isn't it?
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2015-09-11 13:25
We in CA can only vote for one of 2 candidates in General Elections, but unless you've heard something I haven't, we still have complete freedom of choice in the Primaries.
 
 
+2 # gdsharpe 2015-09-11 15:08
Quoting Radscal:
We in CA can only vote for one of 2 candidates in General Elections, but unless you've heard something I haven't, we still have complete freedom of choice in the Primaries.

Which means: If a write-in candidate is popular enough in the primary, that candidate will move on to the general election.
This also points up the importance of voting in the primaries!
 
 
+7 # Vardoz 2015-09-11 10:55
The Superdelagates who are the senior Democrats are going to try and override Bernie and give the nomination to Hillary- they have shown their true colors and do not support the will of the people and we will never vote for those Dems who take part in this kind of corrupt activity and also limit the votes to 6 debates - an outrage!!!! Call the DNC and lodge your complaint 202-863 8000
 
 
+9 # Street Level 2015-09-11 11:02
I saw Joe last night on Colbert's show. He's so mournful over his son's death, I doubt he's got it in him to run and he said as much.
Bernie's rise and Hillary's demise is a shot across the bow to the DNC. They can no longer serve up their anointed candidate and expect the American public to take it in the shorts.
 
 
+10 # pmagoo 2015-09-11 11:36
iT'S DEJA VUS ALL OVER AGAIN. Hillary attacks her opponents, only occassionally stating her proposed solutions/respo nses to the issues, and her program for dealing with them. Meanwhile Bernie explains & attacks only the root causes of our problems and proposes concrete & specific actions he has/will take.
We're tired of negative ads and non-specifics
 
 
-7 # bmiluski 2015-09-11 11:54
The repugs will eat Bernie alive with all their slimey tricks. Should he survive and actually become president, they'll ruin his presidency just as they did with Jimmy Carter and tried to do it to the Obama presidency.
 
 
+1 # nice2bgreat 2015-09-11 12:25
Quoting bmiluski:
The repugs will eat Bernie alive with all their slimey tricks. Should he survive and actually become president, they'll ruin his presidency just as they did with Jimmy Carter and tried to do it to the Obama presidency.

Is this your idea of grace?

Petulant prognostications, irrelevant and sadly ironic projection -- "they" meaning you; they did nothing to Carter's Presidency that he did not do himself or had harsh remedies for, such as deep investigations, personnel placement, and setting policy geared toward real justice, etc., that he was unwilling to utilize;

You do a disservice to Carter, yourself, with your seemingly dim view of his Presidency, possibly not unfounded in many instances -- some of which contributed negatively to where we are today;

but to prematurely cast Carter's political weakness as Sanders' (as if it goes without saying... political realities, no other way... (sophistry, illogic, and defeatism BS) also -- while devoutly supporting Hillary -- is not only graceless, it is unseemly.

You apologist Democrats like to argue, as if just saying something is all that is required.

Quoting bmiluski:
I'll do it as gracefully as you ...nice2begreat.


You'll do what gracefully, bmiluski?
.
 
 
0 # bmiluski 2015-09-11 14:38
Nicetobegreat.. .....this post is NOT a response to your post. This is just an independent post about what I think.
Don't get me wrong, I like Bernie and will vote for him should he win the primary.
As for doing IT gracefully, weeeell...did you read your last post before you hit "send"?
Please, save your vitrol for the other guys.
 
 
0 # nice2bgreat 2015-09-11 15:39
Quoting bmiluski:
Please, save your vitrol for the other guys.


As far as I am concerned, "you" are the "other guys"... bmiluski.

YOU...

NOT REPUBLICANS...

Stand Against Bernie Sanders...

...

You Hillary clowns who argue things -- pre-Democratic-Party Primaries -- such as ...

Quoting bmiluski:
The repugs will eat Bernie alive with all their slimey tricks.


What of you and your slimy tricks... conflating General-Election defeatism -- having no value but to degrade outlook for Bernie Sanders, using classic cart-before-the-horse nonsense...

Ironically -- without any sense of it -- sliming the Republican boogyman as the fall-guy for your slimy attack.

Then, again lacking a sense of decency -- but with the evident, requisite grace -- you feign concern for Sanders' Presidency.

Quoting bmiluski:
Should he survive and actually become president, they'll ruin his presidency just as they did with Jimmy Carter and tried to do it to the Obama presidency.


So, bmiluski,

What will Hillary accomplish that Bernie Sanders cannot?
.
 
 
0 # bmiluski 2015-09-11 15:54
Oh for the love of God...Nicetoegr eat.......give it a rest.
You're a Berny fan, we get it. Good for you.
But to call people slimy just because they don't agree with you well honey.....that' s just graceless.
 
 
0 # nice2bgreat 2015-09-11 16:08
.
No, bmiluski,

As explained, just above, ... written...

You know ... W R I T T E N...

In detail as to why your argument is slimy -- IN DETAIL...

NOT JUST BECAUSE...

BUT BECAUSE...

Quoting nice2bgreat:
You Hillary clowns who argue things -- pre-Democratic-Party Primaries -- such as ...

Quoting bmiluski:
The repugs will eat Bernie alive with all their slimey tricks.


What of you and your slimy tricks... conflating General-Election defeatism -- having no value but to degrade outlook for Bernie Sanders, using classic cart-before-the-horse nonsense...

Ironically -- without any sense of it -- sliming the Republican boogyman as the fall-guy for your slimy attack.

Then, again lacking a sense of decency -- but with the evident, requisite grace -- you feign concern for Sanders' Presidency.

Quoting bmiluski:
Should he survive and actually become president, they'll ruin his presidency just as they did with Jimmy Carter and tried to do it to the Obama presidency.


So, bmiluski,

What will Hillary accomplish that Bernie Sanders cannot?
.
 
 
+2 # Vegan_Girl 2015-09-12 04:24
It's way too late to butt in but... I do think the Republicans are the problem. We need a debate between the center and center-left for a long long time. The GOP and the establishment's 'lesser evil' tactic prevented us from having that debate.

I remember when W was (almost) elected, people blamed Nader voters. I blame GOP voters. Just about half of this country votes against reason, hope, decency, not to mention their own economic self interest. THEY are the problem.

Also, I think we should have run off elections. The last few decades would have turned out very differently.
 
 
+6 # Radscal 2015-09-11 13:31
Polls consistently show that most eligible voters are far more progressive than any Democratic Presidential candidate in decades.

Bernie's goal is to offer policies that the great majority favor, and like Obama in 2008, draw many of the 2/3 to 3/4 who refuse to vote for these "lesser evil" candidates.

And of course, those voters will also vote for the most progressive Congressional and State-level candidates, thereby giving Sanders the support he'll need.

Polls showing Sanders is spot on with the majority:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.boldprogressives.org/images/Big_Ideas-Polling_PDF-1.pdf

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/more-and-more-americans-agree-bernie-sanders-and-not-just-those-who-identify-left

http://prospect.org/article/bernie-sanders-too-radical-america
 
 
+4 # lfeuille 2015-09-11 14:08
Quoting bmiluski:
The repugs will eat Bernie alive with all their slimey tricks. Should he survive and actually become president, they'll ruin his presidency just as they did with Jimmy Carter and tried to do it to the Obama presidency.


Bernie's been in Congress since forever. He knows how politics works. He's not naïve. He's just honest.
 
 
0 # bmiluski 2015-09-11 14:39
Yes, Ifeulle but he's never had the shit thrown at him like the Clintons have.
 
 
+6 # Bruce Gruber 2015-09-11 20:52
The Republican establishment, terrified by Trump's co-opting of their Atwater/Rove decades of division and propaganda, are still too disbelieving of actual citizen awareness that their powder remains all blindly dry for attacking Hillary.

A 180 degree shift to making Bernie the NEW worst devil is likely to give the Sanders the boost in exposure that can make his campaign bi-partisan among the populace and dilute the establishment control on BOTH sides of the aisle even more.

An American SPRING is not impossible, and the entire WORLD awaits with HOPE.
 
 
+1 # gdsharpe 2015-09-11 14:20
Quoting bmiluski:
The repugs will eat Bernie alive with all their slimey tricks. Should he survive and actually become president, they'll ruin his presidency just as they did with Jimmy Carter and tried to do it to the Obama presidency.
And succeeded well with Clinton, too.
 
 
+1 # RLF 2015-09-12 05:59
I think you may be right but that is no reason not to vote in the best presidential candidate. Broken is Broken...at least he'll have the veto and appointments!
 
 
+10 # Buddha 2015-09-11 11:55
Is her support really dropping because Democratic voters really are buying the GOP's "nothing burger" email fake scandal? Or is it that they can tell Bernie is honest, what he is saying resonates, and they are fed up with Wall St. clowns bought-and-paid -for like Hillary selling them out for the 1%'s campaign contributions?
 
 
+1 # lfeuille 2015-09-11 14:10
Quoting Buddha:
Is her support really dropping because Democratic voters really are buying the GOP's "nothing burger" email fake scandal? Or is it that they can tell Bernie is honest, what he is saying resonates, and they are fed up with Wall St. clowns bought-and-paid-for like Hillary selling them out for the 1%'s campaign contributions?


I would suspect the latter. Only republicans care about the email thing. They don't vote in Democratic primaries.
 
 
0 # gdsharpe 2015-09-11 14:24
I suspect this is a rhetorical question...
 
 
0 # gdsharpe 2015-09-11 15:12
Quoting lfeuille:
Quoting Buddha:
Is her support really dropping because Democratic voters really are buying the GOP's "nothing burger" email fake scandal? Or is it that they can tell Bernie is honest, what he is saying resonates, and they are fed up with Wall St. clowns bought-and-paid-for like Hillary selling them out for the 1%'s campaign contributions?


I would suspect the latter. Only republicans care about the email thing. They don't vote in Democratic primaries.
Depending on the state, in some primaries, any registered voter can vote regardless of political affiliation.
 
 
0 # nice2bgreat 2015-09-11 15:59
.
In California, individual Parties decide whether no-Party-affili ation registered-vote rs can cast votes for that Party's Presidential candadites.

My guess is that, if Hillary Clinton has her way, there will be no out-of-Party votes allowed by no-Party-affili ated (formerly known as Independents in California) votes in California's 2016 Democratic Primary Elections for President, because recent polling data show Hillary as vastly unpopular with Independent prospective-voters.
.
 
 
-4 # ericlipps 2015-09-11 19:33
If memory serves, Pat Robertson won the GOP's Iowa caucuses in 1988. But we didn't, thank God, wind up with a President Robertson. (I had a great satirical bumper sticker that year: ROBERTSON IN '88 - HE'LL BRING AMERICA TO ITS KNEES!)

Bernie's boom is impressive, but I suspect it owes quite a bit to the Hillary-hatred Republicans have cultivated among the American people for the last 20 years.
 
 
+5 # Dongi 2015-09-12 05:02
Bernie's boom is because Bernie's program resonates with the American people who are fed up with government by Wall St., for Wall St., and of Wall St. They like the idea of free education through college, secure pensions, restoration of the infrastructure, reduction of military spending, decent health coverage et al.

HRC is fading because she cheats: on her e-mails, on her visits to other countries - she did not land under fire in Croatia, I think, but was welcomed by the President and his daughter with flowers at the airport - and just how deeply she is beholden to AIPAC, like which country does she put first, Israel or the United States.

Because of all of this, the polls are showing remarkable results. Here comes another upset and a progressive president to boot.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN