Fewer Iowa Democrats view Clinton, Sanders favorably now than before caucuses

The Des Moines Register released more results from Selzer & Co’s latest Iowa poll today. Jason Noble led with the presidential preference numbers: among 542 Iowans likely to vote in the June 7 Democratic primary, 42 percent support Bernie Sanders, 40 percent favor Hillary Clinton, and 11 percent support neither candidate. (No-party voters or Republicans can change their registration to cast ballots in the Democratic primary.) In the same survey, 58 percent said Clinton is better positioned to beat Donald Trump, while 29 percent believe Sanders has a stronger chance in the general election.

The most striking finding for me: Clinton and Sanders have the same net favorability at 62 percent. About 35 percent have an unfavorable view of Clinton, and 34 percent say the same about Sanders. Clinton has only slightly lower “very favorable” and slightly higher “very unfavorable” numbers than Sanders does. That’s a big slide in positive impressions of the Democratic contenders compared to the last two Selzer polls before the Iowa caucuses. A Des Moines Register poll taken in early January indicated that “89 percent of likely Democratic caucusgoers view Sanders favorably, and 86 percent of them view Clinton favorably.” During the last week before the February 1 caucuses, Selzer measured the net favorability for Clinton at 81 percent and for Sanders at 82 percent–both close to the 86 percent number for former President Bill Clinton.

Granted, Selzer was not interviewing the same respondent pool in all of these surveys. Still, I was surprised to see net favorables for both Clinton and Sanders so low among people who are likely to vote in tomorrow’s Iowa Democratic primary. The long and increasingly bitter competition for the presidential nomination appears to have turned a lot of Democrats off both candidates. Many Sanders supporters resent Clinton’s establishment or corporate ties and believe primaries in some states have been “rigged” on her behalf. Many Clinton supporters are angry that Sanders plans to take his fight for the nomination to the floor of the Democratic National Convention, despite trailing Clinton by millions of popular votes and hundreds of pledged delegates–a wider gap than Barack Obama’s lead over Clinton at the same point in 2008.

Healing these hard feelings over the summer should be a priority for party activists. Democratic hopes of seriously challenging Senator Chuck Grassley, defeating Congressional Republicans Rod Blum and David Young, holding the Iowa Senate majority, and winning back the Iowa House depend on a strong turnout in November.

P.S.- The Iowa Democratic Party’s Caucus Review Committee should consider these findings as they weigh whether to introduce bound delegates, so that presidential campaigns don’t have to keep fighting each other at county and district conventions. I still occasionally hear Democrats expressing anger and frustration over this year’s Polk County Democratic convention.

UPDATE: The Associated Press reported on the evening of June 6 that Clinton has clinched the Democratic nomination, having won 1,812 pledged delegates in primaries or caucuses as well as the support of 571 superdelegates surveyed by AP journalists. More details are on the AP’s delegate tracker. Most of Iowa’s superdelegates committed to Clinton long ago, though to my knowledge Iowa Democratic Party Chair Andy McGuire is still officially neutral.

About the Author(s)

desmoinesdem

  • Please Abide by the Rules of the DNC in Your Reporting

    The official position of the Democratic Party on when superdelegates are, and are not, supposed to actually count in public vote tallies. None of those superdelegates have actually voted yet, and they can change their minds up to the day before they vote.

    http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/06/01/clinton-and-media-outlets-are-still-counting-superdelegates-voter-tallies-despite

    It ain’t over until it’s over.

    • good luck with that

      Media organizations like to break news. They are not going to wait until the DNC happens to report that Hillary Clinton has enough support to win.

      Meanwhile, can you explain why you believe that the most undemocratic aspect of the system (superdelegates) should hand the nomination to the candidate trailing in both popular votes and pledged delegates?

      Bernie Sanders himself declared Barack Obama the presumptive nominee immediately after the last of the 2008 primaries. At that time, Obama’s lead in pledged delegates was smaller than what Clinton’s will be tomorrow.

  • Is it a coincidence that this fake news story came out the day before the California primary.

    Hillary Clinton doesn’t have enough support to win because the superdelegates haven’t voted yet. They can change their mind at any time. And polls show that Sanders has a much, much better chance at beating Trump than Clinton does. So if the Democratic Party wants to prevent the frightening scenario of Trump becoming President, what do you think they should do? Help the candidate who does markedly worse with independent voters?

    Clinton conceded to Obama after the last of the 2008 primaries, so whatever Sanders said then this is a moot point. He’s taking this all the way to the convention.

    The corporate media wants Clinton elected, and this is a tactic they are using to suppress votes in places like California. Do you think that it is a mere coincidence that this “story” comes out the day before California goes to vote? It would be hugely embarrassing for Clinton to lose in California.

    I’m not the only one who is calling B.S. on this. Check out the top story on CommonDreams.org, “Voters Outraged as Media Accused of Falsely, Preemptively Crowning Clinton”. This is no way to achieve party unity. This sort of thing will motivate Sanders supporters to vote for Jill Stein or stay home on Election Day. I’m not saying that’s what will happen. I’m just stating cause and effect. So go ahead and keep posting fake news articles like the one the AP crafted if you want to burn more bridges with Sanders voters.

  • This isn't 2008. Different times call for different tactics.

    Last I checked, Hillary Clinton wasn’t outperforming Barack Obama against John McCain by 10 percentage points. (Sanders outperforms Clinton against Trump by 10%, and he does much better with Independents, which Democrats will need to win the nomination.) You can’t compare apples to oranges. 2016 is not 2008.

    Back in 2008, around this time, Senator Harry Reid urged senators to “keep their decisions in their pocket” until South Dakota and Montana had voted. Referring to uncommitted superdelegates, he told reporters, “I want everyone, until the elections are over, to keep their decisions in their pocket.” He said “Secretary Clinton needs to be left alone to get through the primary process and let it run its course.”

    http://commondreams.org/views/2016/06/07/establishment-media-commit-massive-act-malpractice-and-claim-clinton-clinched

    Flash forward to 2016. How many senators has Reid hushed this year? I’ve yet to hear him or any other establishment Democrats ask that Sanders be left alone to let the primary process run its course. And you wonder why Sanders voters are furious at the Democratic establishment? It seems to us that there are two sets of rules.

    And unity is a two-way street, my friends.

Comments