Bernie Sanders

CNN Poll: 13% of Sanders Supporters Are Backing Jill Stein, 10% Want Gary Johnson

And just 3% say they'll vote for Trump.

|

Flickr/Brookings

Way down in the crosstabs of CNN's latest presidential poll, we learn how voters who preferred Bernie Sanders to Hillary Clinton say they're most likely to vote in November. A clear majority, 69 percent, favor Clinton. Jill Stein of the Green Party is in second place, with 13 percent. Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party is third, at 10 percent. Donald Trump brings up the rear, with just three percent of the total—the same as "other." That's quite a contrast with how things looked back in June, when Sanders had not yet endorsed his rival and the conventions were still in the future. Back then a Bloomberg poll of Bernie backers had 55 percent supporting Clinton, 22 percent endorsing Trump, and 18 percent leaning toward Johnson.

Now, there are a number of ways that these two surveys are not an apples-to-apples comparison, starting with the fact that the Bloomberg pollsters didn't ask about Jill Stein. Also, those CNN results have an 8 percent margin of error. Still: The difference between 22 and 3 is pretty huge (*).

But the most interesting thing for me isn't that Clinton's numbers went up and Trump's went down. Most of us expected that to happen. The interesting thing is that the size of the segment saying they'll vote third-party has stayed pretty stable. When the Bloomberg results came out, I pointed out that Johnson's 18 percent was probably inflated somewhat by people who wanted a third option but were more likely to go for Jill Stein. Her platform, after all, is a lot closer to Sanders' than Johnson's is. Add her to the mix, and the third-party total goes up a bit while Johnson's total goes down a bit; if a June poll had included both of the major-minor candidates, I would not be surprised if it had produced the same results. The number of Sanders/Trump voters may be small, but the share of Sanders voters who feel alienated from both of the big parties' nominees doesn't seem to be small at all.

(* Or "yuuuuuuge," if you're into jokes that have gotten kinda tired.)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

90 responses to “CNN Poll: 13% of Sanders Supporters Are Backing Jill Stein, 10% Want Gary Johnson

  1. A clear majority, 69 percent, favor Clinton.

    Hang on, let me find my shocked face – i know it’s around here somewhere…

    1. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week.
      I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do… http://www.trends88.com

  2. It’s a missed opportunity for Trump. I still contend who could have grabbed a not-insignificant fraction of Bernie Bros by floating a free college proposal and throwing some bones to the anti-Wall Street sentiment.

    Anyway, would like to see Johnson’s numbers grow. Starting to feel cynical about that, but it’s still a long way to November.

    1. You WOULD want to see Johnson get bigger.

  3. Yet more evidence that people just fucking vote based on nonsense and whims, and not at all based on carefully considered policy positions.

    This is why I don’t really care about electoral politics. It’s possible to win small victories here and there, but since the anti-gov’t-taking-care-of-us stance seems to be strongly counterintuitive to most people, I don’t think there’s ever really going to be sustained libertarian reform achieved via the ballot box.

    1. You know why people build robots? Because they’re fucking lazy. Fucking lazy people are thrilled when someone offers to take care of them.

      The moral is: robots are gonna have all the jobs and all the people will turn into slugs.

      1. I think it will be more like becoming your robot’s dog. You get to stay home all day, fed, petted and taken for walks.

        1. Sounds awesome, until they decide we’ll be better pets if we are neutered.

        2. Going for walks? Going to the food dish? That’s way too much work. If it has to be done, a remote control will be built to eliminate any necessary movement.

        3. My dog has am awesome life. Though depending on someone else to take a piss kinda sucks.

  4. They were obviously impressed by the Johnson/Weld affinity for judges like Breyer and Garland. Good, solid friends of liberty they are.

  5. Also, the ad I have on the right is for all-gay cruises. It’s a bunch of super-buff dudes having fun and splashing eachother in a cruise ship pool. Looks pretty fun.

    1. Go for it, you might have a chance after the eyebrow threading incident.

      1. Those homos are pretty discerning. Jimbo would need a full-body threading in order to have a real shot.

    2. This is what happens when you don’t use an anonomizer when you surf gay porn sites. Google sees all. Or so I have heard.

      1. Odd that my stringent work firewall isn’t blocking that

      2. Meh, Bing is better at porn anyway. Or so I have heard.

    3. Hmm… I wonder if I’d have a better shot at seducing the hot chick tending bar?

  6. FWIW, NBC Poll…

    Gary Johnson 72278 37%
    Other 36837 19%
    Donald Trump 36439 19%
    Jill Stein 29459 15%
    Hillary Clinton 20969 11%

    1. HITLER DID NOTHING WRONG
      5312
      3%

      Seems legit.

      1. Good catch.

        Obviously, legit polls (and presidential ballots) don’t allow write-ins. That would skew the results.

  7. I remember when the prospect of a Libertarian candidate getting 2% of the vote was huge.

    Trump’s exchange with our patriotic Muslim friends didn’t help him with swing voters, I’m sure.

    On the other hand, his wife is even wilder than we though, so I guess it’s a wash?

    No? Doesn’t work that way?

    Any chance someone at Reason will cover the Clinton Foundation being used as a conduit for financing and technology transfers for the Russian military?

    http://tinyurl.com/j8vfz9f

    —-Wall Street Journal

    I know it’s not as important as ENB’s naked pictures of Melanoma, but I thought it might at least get a mention in AM links.

    Why would we expect Hillary’s numbers do go down when the media won’t even mention her ethical disasters?

    1. Any chance someone at Reason will cover the Clinton Foundation being used as a conduit for financing and technology transfers for the Russian military?

      Yeah, this is sad.

      I assumed that there was either something really bad (like WWIII-level bad) in HRC’s emails and/or that Lynch basically forced Comey to realize he’d be tilting at windmills with heavy emphasis on the latter. Instead, *and* is seeming like the probable case and it seems virtually none of the MSM is covering it.

      Exceptionally sad considering the case for linking Trump to the Russian hacking of the DNC was completely unfounded when it ‘broke’.

    2. Behind a paywall…short and sweet bitter?

      1. Google the headline.

  8. if you’re into jokes that have gotten kinda tired.

    I’ll ask the people who still have some variation of woodchipper in their screen names.

    1. Ouch. Are we still doing the masturbation thing?

      1. Of course. Everyone does the masturbation thing. You’re a liar if you say you don’t.

        1. I meant me and Hugh after work. Are we still getting together?

          1. Dude. “Polling for Johnson”, please.

      2. Who told you to stop?

    2. I’m too lazy to switch back, and anyway at this point I’ve had this one longer than my old one.

      1. I’m too lazy…

        See! I bet you’d switch if you could get a robot to do it.

    3. Wait… What?

    4. I don’t have a variation of woodchipper in my name.

  9. I do wonder if Johnson’s going a little too far out of his way to chase some fraction of 25% of 43% of 50% of 55%.

    That is, the percent of voters who will actually turn out (55%), were Democratically inclined (~50% of that), preferred Sanders to Clinton (43% of that), were willing to actually reject Clinton (25% of that), and can be persuaded libertarianism is compatible with Sandersism (probably less than half).

    We’re talking one, two percent of the voting age population. I support Gary but he’s gone through a lot of ideological gymnastics to chase that little sliver.

    1. Has he? At what point in his political career has he actually appeared like he’s needed any “gymnastics” to get to where he is now? If anything, if I recall, he was a bit less libertarian while serving as governor. (Maybe a little bit more so in the interim.) This isn’t Ron Paul we’re talking about here.

    2. We’re talking one, two percent of the voting age population.

      We’re talking about disaffected Bernie Bros voting LP equaling or even doubling the entire previous LP vote ever.

  10. (* Or “yuuuuuuge,” if you’re into jokes that have gotten kinda tired.)

    Everyone knows that endless repetition is the mother of humor.

    1. My thoughts and masturbations are with you.

    2. which is why candidates stick to the same stump speech

  11. This poll is of registered voters. The thing about the numbers of Bernie supporters who say they support Johnson or Stein is not so much that they will do it but that they will likely not vote at all. The whole thing is about turnout. If the electorate looks like it did in 2014, Hillary is toast. If it looks like it did in 2012, she likely wins.

    The more I see things like this, the more likely it seems that the electorate will look like 2014 and not 2012.

    1. I hope you’re right. I have a wager with my wife as to who is going to win the election, and I’d hate to have to eat crow due to a Hillary blowout.

      (Naturally, in the case of a Trump blowout, I will be magnanimous; one can’t gloat and effectively stockpile gold, ammo and canned goods at the same time)

      1. “…one can’t gloat and effectively stockpile gold, ammo and canned goods at the same time.”

        Shit, I’ve been doing that for ten years now.

      2. You misspelled “monogamous.”

    2. Seems like more of a stretch to think a presidential year is going to be like an off year, no? The differences between the two type of election really dwarf the trends from election to election of either type.

      1. Not really. The 06 election looked like 08 and 12. The 04 one looked a lot like 14. The thing about both 08 and 12 was that Obama got huge turnout from youth and the black community. Romney won independents by like 14 points and won something like 90% of Republicans. The problem was not that many Republicans and independents showed up to vote.

        The question is can Hillary get the youth and black vote to show up in the numbers they did in 2012. Maybe they showed up in those numbers because it was a Presidential year. But I kind of think Obama being on the ballot had something to do with it.

        1. The question is can Hillary get the youth and black vote to show up in the numbers they did in 2012.

          I think the answer is no. Which is why Hillary should lose. On the other hand, Trump seems to be trying to lose. So I am now less certain that Hillary is going to lose.

        2. True, she doesn’t energize them at all–the kids far more than the blacks, who like her just fine but who turned out in super-white numbers for Obama and may not hold that pattern over time. What will be tested for the ages is whether hate can turn folks out like love. Because anyone even thinking of voting for Hillary certainly has that (and fear) for Trump in spades.

          1. Like I said below, I think it is a pretty good bet that anyone who tells a pollster they support Trump is plenty motivated to show up and vote. The question is how many who say they support Hillary are motivated to vote. Now of course being extra motivated doesn’t help. Your vote counts the same whether you really wanted to cast it or wanted to cast it just enough to bother to do it. So, intensity alone doesn’t mean a candidate will win. The question is how many Hillary supporters just won’t bother. We will find out soon enough but I don’t think the answer to that is clear.

            1. Michael Moore said Trump will win because Democrats aren’t motivated. He said there is a difference between going out to vote and getting excited enough to drag five other people out to vote.

              I expect a very big downturn in Democratic voters. The only question is how badly Trump is going to alienate the Republican establishment.

              1. His whole campaign has been based on alienating the Republican establishment. Feature, not bug.

              2. As far as Establishment Republicans go I think the counter to that is that there isn’t enough of those folks in the swing states to cost him the election. But I don’t know. Ohio? Pennsylvania? Michigan? These aren’t just rust belt holding pens. There are a lot of suburban Republicans in those places. And Obama, especially Obama 2012, may have bottomed out on the disaffected blue-collar types while taking those states.
                .
                Trump can kiss Virginia goodbye, certainly. But will he have to do the same up North?

                1. Trump doesn’t need Virginia. If he wins Florida and the upper Midwest, he wins.

        3. Midterm turnout is always lower. It was in 2006. And the 2006 electorate wasn’t particularly friendly to Democrats from a demographic POV. 79% of voters were white (more than 2004 and 2014, as well as 2008 and 2012) and only 12% were under 20 (in presidential years it’s been 17-19% the last 3 times, and it was 13% in 2014).

          1. But the 06 electorate’s composition looked a lot like the 08. And that is why the Republicans got killed. And again, I think it is a bit of a stretch to think that the huge numbers of blacks and young people who showed up in 08 and 12 just came because it was a Presidential election and not because Obama was on the ballot.

            1. No it didn’t. The 2004 electorate resembled 2008 more than 2006. John, just google the exit polls for all of these elections and the data is right there.

              I’m sure Obama did bring in some young and black people who wouldn’t have otherwise voted. That doesn’t change the fact that presidential turnout is always much higher than midterms, and that these groups were still a larger share of the electorate in 2004 than they were in 2006.

              Black turnout will probably be lower than it was for Obama, but I’d be surprised if it wasn’t higher than it was for Kerry. Clinton is popular among black voters, as is her husband, and both Bill and Obama will be campaigning for her. On top of that, Trump is more hated by black people than Bush was in 2004.

              1. We all have our biases. But my God, you really believe that Hillary might actually get the same black turnout Obama did? Do you really think Obama just got a “some young and black people to turnout” and didn’t do so in historic numbers such that Democrats can, even with a candidate most voters loath can get the same kind of turnout again?

                Let me just give you couple of things. In 2012 black voters accounted for 13% of the votes cast and Obama got 93% of them. In 2004, blacks accounted for 11% of the vote and Kerry got 88% of them. If black turnout and voting returns to what it was in 2004, the last time a black guy wasn’t on the ballot, that makes a huge difference, Obama got around 14.2 million black votes in 2012 and Romney got about a million. If we have the same number of total votes this year and a return to what the black votes were in 2004, Hillary will get 11 million votes and Trump 1.5 million black votes. That means Obama got a 13 million vote advantage from the black community and Hillary would get a 9.5 million vote advantage costing Hillary 3.5 million votes. Obama only one by five million votes in 2012. That is a big fucking deal. And “but Bill was popular with black voters” doesn’t really explain why blacks are going to show up like 2012 instead of 2004. Hillary isn’t black.

                1. I said it would be inbetween 2004 and 2012.

                  Yes, Clinton isn’t black but she’s also not John Kerry and Trump isn’t George W Bush. Polls indicate that matching GWB’s 11% of the black vote will be tough for Trump.

                  Regarding your post below – where tf are you getting that Trump is winning 65% of the white vote? I have seen nothing to indicate anything close to this.

                  He’s crushing her with non-college educated whites (men, especially) but overall he’s doing terrible among college-educated whites and white women compared to previous Republican nominees. And it’s going to be hard to win with significantly lessened support from those demographics (who combined are a solid majority of white voters).

                  1. Polls indicate that matching GWB’s 11% of the black vote will be tough for Trump.

                    I don’t see why. 90 10 has been what Republicans have gotten. And Trump hasn’t had an issue with black voters. And blacks voted for Hillary in the primaries but turned out in much lower numbers for her than the did for Obama. The black community is more or less demoralized right now. You are smoking crack if you think that Hillary is getting anything more than the usual 90% Dem share of a low turnout. Your argument boils down to just saying “no one is going to vote for Trump” in various different ways.

                    Maybe they won’t. You seem to want to believe it more than anything.

                    1. “And Trump hasn’t had an issue with black voters.”

                      Where the fuck have you been this election cycle? Have you been in a coma the last year? Trump is absolutely hated by black people. His favorability is single digits in most polls. It’s worse than it is with Latinos. His polling is about the same as Romney’s in 2012. He’s gotten 0 or almost 0 support among black voters in some polls. In any case, we are quibbling about a few percentage points difference of a group that’s less than 15% of the electorate. It might make a difference if the race is with a percent or so, but that’s about it, even if the evidence did indicate Trump was going to do substantially better than Romney.

                      “The black community is more or less demoralized right now.”

                      By historical standards, not really. Minorities are actually more optimistic about the country than white people are.

                      Quit projecting John. This is the exact same thing you did in 2012. Create half assed logic why your desired outcome is going to happen and insist that anyone who disagrees is just not thinking straight. Did you ever own up to your misassessment of the 2012 race?

                      Also, I noticed you completely ignored the part about white voters.

              2. Meanwhile, even in 2012, White were still 72% of the vote. Romney won the white vote by 27 million votes. If the white vote picks up say half of the 2 percent drop in black votes, that means it would increase by about two million votes. Trump is currently getting 65% of the white vote. Romney got 59%. That means instead of winning the white vote 50 million to 33 million like Romney did, Trump would today win it 55 million to 31 million, assuming a 73% white turnout. So instead of winning it by 17 million votes, Trump would win it by 23 million votes. That extra six million votes plus the 3. million vote reduction in the black voting margin would mean Trump wins by four million votes.

                The math is what it is. It won’t take much change in turnout from 2012 to flip the election.

          2. Obama drew lots of first-time voters in the last two presidential cycles.

            This year first-timers came out for Bernie. These are the people on Facebook that are now pissed at Bernie for giving up too soon; pissed at the DNC for cheating; and pissed at Hillary for being a corrupt crony with wall street bankers.

            I don’t think you are going to see 16% or 17% young voters this cycle which makes it very much not like 2008 and 2012.

            1. It was 17% in 2004 which was pre-Obama.

              Also, young voters were important for Obama, but they weren’t make or break in either election. He won primarily by doing ok with white voters and boosting turnout and margin of victory with minority voters.

  12. If the electorate looks like it did in 2014, Hillary is toast. If it looks like it did in 2012, she likely wins.

    The more I see things like this, the more likely it seems that the electorate will look like 2014 and not 2012.

    Roughly what I have been saying for months now. Hillary is not going to draw like Obama did in 2012. The more ugly the campaign gets the lower the turn out will be across the board, but I think Dems will stay home more than Reps.

    Iowa is a solidly purple state. In 2014, Braley gave up a totally secure Dem congressional seat to run for Harkin’s senate seat. Braley lost to a novice Republican woman (Joanie Ernts). And Republican Blum took the congressional seat as well.

    I am starting to see Trump signs in the rural areas. I have not seen a single Hillary sign anywhere. I think Iowa is going to turn away from Hillary and go for Trump.

    1. Trump will have to take a lot more than rural America, and certainly a lot more than Iowa. Compared with 2012, I like Hillary to hold an ever-more suburbanizing Virginia. I see Trump taking a lot of time off and talking about California and New York and so forth, which I don’t think he can put into play enough to convince Hillary to join him. He should be spending his entire time on the rust belt and Florida, where Hillary is ahead right now, and which of course would be the whole enchilada. I still like her for this race.

      1. A lot of people that would never say in public that they will vote for Trump are going to go and vote for Trump.

        1. You are probably right; big potential Bradley effect on his behalf. If I were Trump I would be a bit worried about its “evil twin,” though: the second-guessing in the booth (or earlier) of the “risky” “making a statement to the Man vote.” Kind of like Scots Independence, or Perotism, or whatever.

        2. “This election, why not be ashamed of your vote? Trump 2016”

    2. The thing is that anyone who supports Trump and will tell a pollster that is likely to be very motivated to vote. Few of the Hillary supporters are motivated like that. Across an electorate as big as ours, that makes a huge difference.

      1. I don’t think that’s true at all. Trump may have had enthusiastic supporters in the primary, but in the general election a lot of the people in the 40-45% he’s getting in the polls are not at all enthusiastic about him. About 50% of the Trump voters say they’re voting more against Clinton than for Trump. Clinton actually does better in this regard, only about 40% of her voters say they’re mostly voting against Trump rather than for her.

        1. I can find no information on the enthusiasm gap since June. Everything before that shows a huge advantage to the Republicans in that regard. Maybe that has changed, but if it has I can’t find any evidence of it. Beyond that, Trump does better in every poll of likely voters than he does among registered voters. That seems to point to some kind of a gap existing.

          Maybe you know different people than I do. But I don’t know a single person who is motivated or happy to vote for Hillary and I know a lot of Democrats. Again, not being motivated doesn’t mean you won’t vote. But it doesn’t mean you will either.

          1. Scroll down to page 24 and 25 in the CNN poll released yesterday. I’ve seen other polls that show the same thing.

            Republicans almost always do better in likely vs registered voter polls unless the poll has a really bad likely voter determination process. Is there a recent poll that shows both to show the difference this year?

            http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2…..ention.pdf

          2. Also, you made this exact same argument in 2012. That the polls were overestimating how much the electorate would be like 2008 and that they were thus underestimating Romney. In the end, they underestimated Obama’s support. You might be right this time around, but I think your position here is based on partisan wishful thinking for the most part.

            1. If not for wishful thinking expressed as rationalizations, John would have nothing to post in an election year.

  13. I just got a petition from Change.org demanding that “Upskirting” be made illegal

    I can’t really make up my mind. Reason needs to step in and parse the libertarian priority here.

    1. Well, that sounds like a noble goal of social justice, so I’m sure ENB will get right on the case.

      1. I’m thinking its more of a “fair use/public access” thing

        Reason has consistently supported the freedom to photograph in public places (particularly cops). I don’t know how “panties” fit in to that subject. I think it also raises the subject of “men in kilts”

        1. Start a petition on Change.org demanding that “panties” be made illegal?

  14. Enough, Donald! Stop!

    (Brits have had it)

    1. Small hands. It’s about small hands.

  15. I’ve never had big expectations for Johnson’s percentage. If his slice is big enough that he gets blamed for Hillary getting elected (or Trump, tho’ I don’t see pundits blaming him for that), then color me satisfied. That will be a milestone for the LP.

    1. I’ve never had big expectations for Johnson’s percentage

      He’s a grower, not a shower

  16. 85% of them are Ready for Hillary?

  17. As long as he gets at least 5% in the general, I’ll call that a win. Largest third-party showing since 1996? Works for me.

  18. CNN Poll: 13% of Sanders Supporters Are Backing Jill Stein, 10% Want Gary Johnson
    And just 3% say they’ll vote for Trump.

    I guess the other 74% are either staying home, or they’ll “jump on the team and come on in for the big win” (e.g., vote for Cankles because MOSTEST IMPORTINT ELEKSHUN EVAR!!1!11!!!!!!!).

  19. I i get paid over $86 per hour working from home with 3 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless.

    Heres what I’ve been doing:==>==>==> http://www.CareerPlus90.com

  20. I left my office-job and now I am getting paid 98 usd hourly. How? I work over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was forced to try something different, 2 years after…I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out what i do…

    >>>>>>>>>> http://www.CareerPlus90.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.