Who's Spoiling Now? Polling Indicates That Democrats UNDERRATE Sanders' Electability at THEIR PERIL

[Segami]

Over at Huffpo, Rob Hager, has one of the more interesting analysis of the 2016 presidential primary to date. I encourage reading it in its entirety as it doesn’t dodge the reality of where we find ourselves as democrats. His analysis shows that losing to the republican 'clown car' is quite possible unless we are able to face the realistic 'electability' of our primary candidates.

This article looks at polling data from the point of view of an Independent plurality which favors Bernie Sanders by 36% over Clinton, making him in turn a likely winner against any Republican, while leaving Clinton only a toss-up chance in November. It is risky for a party that shares only 30% of the electorate to ignore the decisive role that Independents play in choosing Presidents. The Democratic Party's own shrinking base gives it features of a third party in need of coalition with the larger "party" of Independents that Bernie Sanders brings to the table.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-hager/whos-spoiling-now-polling_b_8792692.html

Hager’s piece looks at the numbers, and numbers don’t lie.

The polls' most optimistic message can be summarized in the mathematics of the Democratic primary. With 30 percent of the electorate expected to vote 2:1 for Clinton, Democrats provide Sanders half the votes he needs to win the primary. But since he leads Clinton by 36% among Independents, who are 43% of the electorate, he can gain another 14% if his Independent supporters will only deign to contaminate themselves by participating in the primary of the Democrats they otherwise disdain. This would deliver Sanders a 24-20% victory over Clinton in the primary. If he wins the primary, again with the support of Independents, Sanders is a slam dunk to win the general election against any Republican. This would change the Democratic Party as we know it to be, a network for corruption.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-hager/whos-spoiling-now-polling_b_8792692.html

With only 30 per cent of the electorate, Democrats would be foolhardy to think that their chances are strong if they nominate a candidate who has massive unfavoribilities with both independents and republicans. The Q-Poll findings: "Sanders does just as well [as Clinton against Rubio], or even better, against [the other] top Republicans [Trump, Carson,and Cruz]." Against each of the latter three, Sanders' winning margin exceeds Clinton's by an additional 2%, 3% and 5% respectively, compared to a survey margin of error of +/- 2.6%.

Sanders' additional margin of safety places him beyond the margin of polling error around which Clinton's fluctuating numbers for her Republican match-ups are more commonly found. Sanders' numbers also seem "almost like a rout" compared to a toss-up for Clinton.There is no doubt that Sanders holds the enthusiasm factor for the Democrats. Choosing Clinton could very well depress the vote just when the Democrats so desperately need to build their base. Hager goes into the reasons why Independents are rapidly growing their numbers while the traditional parties are rapidly becoming irrelevant. I strongly encourage reading his entire article.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/12/17/1461057/-Who-s-Spoiling-Now-Polling-Indicates-That-Democrats-Underrate-Sanders-Electability-at-Their-Peril

[MohRokTah]

1. .

[NCTraveler]

2. This is now op after op about how republicans are dictating their vote.

It appears the fear tactic is working well on you.

[MohRokTah]

4. .

[AgingAmerican]

67. Pathetic

[MohRokTah]

69. BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

[AgingAmerican]

72. Pathetic

[MohRokTah]

73. And the hits just keep on coming!!!!

[AgingAmerican]

74. Trolling 101

[MohRokTah]

75. Do you REALLY want to kill me?

Because I'm friggin' DYING of laughter here!

[AgingAmerican]

78. Spamming is a TOS violation

Keep it up

[BeanMusical]

97. Seriously pathetic.

[libdem4life]

7. Call me naive, but how the Republicans vote matters very much. Nor do I see a "fear"

factor???? Apparently OP is a Bernie supporter, as am I. And I've read these polls quite a lot. It's pretty simple at the end of the day, actually, the Democratic Candidate will need to win over the Republican Candidate, but of course you know that.

So, on to Iowa ... let the race begin.

[NCTraveler]

12. So in your opinion, if both Sanders and Clinton are shown....

consistently beating republicans in poll after poll, we go with candidate with the largest margin? You might not like who that candidate is.

"Call me naive, but how the Republicans vote matters very much."

My vote isn't based on republicans.

[libdem4life]

14. Well, currently Bernie is in the Lead on this match up....head to head against the Republicans..

Yes, that matters a great deal. Why wouldn't it? And note my Sig Line...I'd be fine with the candidate and the largest margin. If they start showing that Hillary is consistently ahead in a head-to-head, I'd definitely seriously consider changing my primary vote.

To me, it's not as much about personalities, its about data. And with only two viable candidates, in a way, we've already got a head start. How our opponents intend to/are polled to vote absolutely should help us determine which is the strongest candidate. They are in disarray...looking at a brokered convention...beyond wacky now publicly.

[NCTraveler]

15. He actually isn't beating them more than Clinton if you read poll after poll.

You might want to think about changing your vote to Clinton. Don't want to lose to the republicans and overall Clinton is doing better than Sanders.

Then again, I thing GE polls are crap at this point so am more amused at the weight you and others give them.

[libdem4life]

17. Polls are all we have, AFAIK. I mean how do you know Hillary is ahead? Right, a poll.

So for your added amusement, note that this is a conversation...debate...comparison. Weight? No more than the same weight that Hillary is ahead in national polls. I'm assuming that weight is OK. And the GE polls are crap because why, again? It's how we do it here and most every other political place at Primary time.

[NCTraveler]

18. You are using as justification for your vote. That is a lot of weight.

You are arguing that it is good justification. That is giving it weight. That's you, not me.

" I mean how do you know Hillary is ahead? Right, a poll."

That is the metric you are using and I'm fine with it. Interestingly enough, the polls don't show what you are saying overall. Might want to think about changing your vote after you research a number of recent polls. My vote will stay just where it is. Fuck republicans.

[libdem4life]

22. Well, how do you know she is ahead then? Now I'm a bit intrigued. I didn't make my choice via a

poll. My justification/decision came from listening, watching, reading, surfing online...that's the only way we have to make a choice. And nowhere ever did I try and get you to change your vote.

This has gone afield from the beginning, I perceive. I am just hoping that whoever gets the nomination, the entire party...those disappointed and those elated...will work our behinds off to beat the Republicans. I know I will.

[Fed up in NJ]

94. Double Standard

It's funny how Hillary supporters will agree that Trump wont get elected because, while he does have the lead among likely Repukes, he only has 40% of likely Repuke voters whom make up only 40% of ALL voters for a whopping 16% of the total electorate. And we know there will be damn near 0% of liberals or Democrats voting for him but when the same logic is compared to Hillary and Bernie and Bernie comes out ahead the logic is flawed?!?!

[JDPriestly]

45. I think that the point is that Clinton wins polls heads down if only likely Democratic or Democratic

voters are polled. But Sanders wins polls heads down when Independents are polled.

The author of the article posits that Democrats are more likely to win if we nominate Sanders who has cross-over appeal to Independents.

Makes sense.

We shall see.

It isn't an argument to just put down and dismiss. It is a serious argument to consider as we watch how the primaries and caucuses develop and how polling continues to develop.

I'm a Bernie fan in part because I think that Hillary has serious issues with voters who might be moved to vote Democratic considering the horrible Republican field.

I have a lot of other reasons for supporting Bernie and I could never support Hillary. Her judgment is too poor. And besides the Republicans have rigged a number of traps for her in the general election contest. While those that have been building and rigging the traps thus far are not very smart and haven't tripped them yet, there are some nasty rogues in the Republican Party who will know when to trip, how to trip and will be ready.

Remember the October surprise that ruined Carter's chance at re-election?

That's the kind of maneuver I am talking about. Hillary has so many potential real and BOGUS scandals in her closet that it seems unbelievable. But they are very much there, and many of them have not been discussed by the media yet in this election cycle.

It's hard to scrape up negatives about Sanders because he is just so blatantly himself and doesn't try to be anything else. As he explained to Killer Mike, Bernie has not built a career with the White House in mind. He is what he is. He hasn't hidden what he is.

Hillary to the contrary has had ambitions from early on. Who knows who she really is? I don't. And I'm sure a lot of voters feel like I do and wonder who she really is underneath it all.

I tend to interpret the snarky reactions to this article as a deep, emotional recognition on the part of the snarky reactors that the article has more than a grain of truth.

I don't think it tells the whole story. I think emotional reactions to the candidates are probably the most important factor in determining who can win an election. But let's take this process of choosing a candidate seriously and not just ridicule good articles that have an independent take on what matters in our decisionmaking.

Snark does not get candidates elected. Liking a candidate gets the candidate elected.

Ridiculing the candidate that the majority of DUers like is not the way to build good will among DUers for another candidate. It is more likely to offend and drive potential voters away and cause them not to vote at all.

[workinclasszero]

37. +100

[JDPriestly]

42. I almost never alert on a post, and I rarely, rarely vote to remove a post.

But, MohRokTah, I alerted on your post.

It does not further the debate. It is simply a put-down, meant to unnerve and insult other DUers.

The primaries confront Democrats with a serious decision. We cannot afford to have a Republican president. There are many factors to consider in voting in the primaries and caucuses. The more intelligent discussion we can have, the more likely we are to make the best choice.

I look forward to your intelligent participation in the debate we are having here. Thanks in advance.

[MohRokTah]

43. .

[AgingAmerican]

63. This is pathetic

[MohRokTah]

65. BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

[AgingAmerican]

70. Pathetic trolling

[MohRokTah]

71. And you just keep CRACKING ME UP!!!!!

[TSIAS]

79. Results of jury service

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
On Thu Dec 17, 2015, 10:44 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=906512

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Disruptive, over-the-top trolling. This poster's sole objective is to disrupt and trash the discussion thread using the ROFL smiley without ever adding a single comment into the discussion thread. This poster is disrupting the discussion and continues to repeat their trolling behavior on post #1, #4, #43, #62, #66, #69, #73, #75. Please hide

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Dec 17, 2015, 10:51 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This poster IS trolling. He/She adds nothing to the discussion at DU but vitriol and snark. However, I don't think posting emoticons really warrants a hide. I'd suggest just putting this poster on ignore.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: GMAFB. Put him on ignore then.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerting for smilies, really? Just ignore him.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I never saw a post hidden for using a smilie fully available to all posters. If this poster was a troll, he/she would have been banned long before 11,000 posts. This is simply a pointless alert.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Waste of bandwidth

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

For some reason I voted to save your sorry brown nosing ass.

[Fed up in NJ]

95. Ditto

This lends nothing to the debate and is, in my opinion, intended to instigate unproductive fighting. I don't remember if there was an age requirement to joining DU but this makes it look like there isn't...

[AgingAmerican]

61. Hillary 'support' in a nutshell

[MohRokTah]

62. .

[AgingAmerican]

64. Pathetic

[MohRokTah]

66. BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

[AgingAmerican]

68. Pathetic trolling

[notadmblnd]

76. wouldn't what that poster is doing be considered spam?

Isn't spaming a TOS violation. I mean really this has been posted in this thread alone no less than 7 times already.

[AgingAmerican]

77. Yes its spamming

[BlueMTexpat]

88. Thanks for posting this so that I

wouldn't have to.

[Wellstone ruled]

3. It's all about credibility of

the Senatorial and House Campaign Reelection Committees. If what we read on our own issues boards are some gauge of what is hanging out there,this could happen. Wasserman-Schultz surly is not helping our cause by her Elitist attitude and not listening to what is being discussed on the voter level. Who the heck is running the Senate side of this,were are they? Talk about tone deaf.

[99th_Monkey]

5. But, but .. polls say "likely Dem. Voters" like Hillary, and it's her turn.

likely Dem voters with land-lines, who have voted in past two-three elections.

Besides, Hills has raised WAY more money from Wall St. and the MIC than Bernie. So there.

[upaloopa]

6. You believe your own propaganda too much

Last edited Thu Dec 17, 2015, 03:53 PM - Edit history (1)

They always poll both land lines and cell phones.

I would think you all would go back to the 2012 election and compare what repubs were saying about the polls with what you are saying now.

The similarity is uncanny.

[99th_Monkey]

13. It's mixed bag.

Gallop claims they do include cell phones, while Rasmussen says it doesn't.

[Fawke Em]

82. Actually, Gallup says "horse race" polling is VERY inaccurate and they

have chosen not to participate in that this year.

When it comes to election polling, it’s the best of times and the worst of times.

On the positive side, there is more polling than ever from private universities, news media and small independent shops. Sites like HuffPost Pollster, RealClearPolitics and FiveThirtyEight also provide sophisticated analysis of what the polls mean.

On the negative side, the glut of polls often doesn’t add up to much, while problems with getting accurate results are starting to hurt the polling industry’s reputation.

The announcement this week that Gallup, one of America’s most storied pollsters, will no longer do horse-race polling on who’s ahead in the 2016 election cycle only underscored the huge changes in the industry.

http://time.com/4067019/gallup-horse-race-polling/

On the whole, the article discusses how crappy polling has become BECAUSE so few people use landlines and cellphone polling is harder. From what I've been reading, the best way to poll now is a combination between landlines, cellphones and online (yes, Hill fans) polling.

Ironically, the few polls who are doing that all show Bernie much, much closer to Clinton than those horrid Monmouth polls that exclude nearly everyone under 26 by their methodologies or the PPP polls that have lost their credibility by allowing themselves to be bought by the Clinton campaign for polling a few times.

[99th_Monkey]

84. Very informative. Thanks. nt

[SmittynMo]

39. This isn't the Grammy's

Can someone explain to me and many others here that may not understand the "her turn" comment? There is no such thing in politics and life in general. The Grammy's might be the exception, which definitely does not apply here.

[senz]

8. K&R This looks very interesting.

I have to bake a birthday cake but can hardly wait to get back to this!

Carry on, good peeps.

[Jarqui]

9. I haven't analyzed all the details of what is claimed

but in general, I'm not surprised by the general message and I agree with it.

Outside of the party, Hillary is very unpopular and not trusted. Therefore, she has a real hard ceiling that has nothing to do with her gender. Bernie doesn't have that problem or as severe a problem and does better with Republicans and independents.

The problem Bernie faces in this primary is a marketing problem. Not enough people are familiar with him and his policies. Not enough people realize he's more electable than Hillary (which is why 25% of the Democratic party doesn't trust Hillary either but many are going to hold their nose a going to vote for her)

[libdem4life]

24. This seems to me to be a fair assessment. If by some chance, Bernie wins the nomination, then he

will immediately be known to the nation. But people will pay more attention because he is new to the scene. They know pretty much about Hillary after her 2 decades in politics, but Bernie is not only new, but presenting a unique message.

But his largest struggle at this point, is the Primary. The early Primaries will bring him publicity...hopefully winning them. But it's going to be a struggle all the way. But, then again, no one thought he'd get this far.

[Jarqui]

33. He has to win Iowa and New Hampshire

If he does that, he has time to build momentum to be competitive in the states that follow from the media attention he'll receive. Doesn't mean he's going to win - it just means he can be competitive for some time and still has a chance.

Hillary's team is working very hard and spending big bucks in Iowa to not let history repeat itself. If she stops him there, I think his campaign would be in desperate trouble - probably dead.

It's a little crazy with 50 states that the first one will mean so much but I think, in this case, because of the rest of the country's lack of awareness of Bernie, he's got to take it to get the free media attention he needs from a media that has been largely and arguably unfairly ignoring him.

[DFW]

93. Even if he doesn't win Iowa and/or New Hampshire

If he gets a respectable showing, say a margin of less than ten points separating him and HRC, I'd bet that it would be enough for the MSM media to wake up and say, "whoa, this is a serious contest." If the result in either in HRC over Bernie by 15 points or more, it will be more difficult, but his base is strong enough to keep his campaign alive for a while after that in any case. If he hasn't a single state in his corner by April, I'd say THEN it is time to think about calling it a day. But since recognition is a big factor where he lags, and a big showing (not to mention a win, no matter how narrow) in either IA or NH would get him plenty, it would be way premature to call it either way at this point, no matter what polls say.

One thing to remember--Santorum won the Republican Iowa caucuses in 2012. How far did THAT get him? These days, I'd bet that the number of Americans who know that "Santorum" is NOT a place where the incurably ill or hopelessly deranged are sent is under 50%. But that was in a field where about ten Republicans were competing to show that one was crazier than the other--far from what we are looking at as Democrats this year.

[JDPriestly]

48. I have a friend who is the very profile of what you would think of as a Democratic voter.

She is, however, not as interested in politics and listens to the radio a lot.

We on DU have no idea what is being hawked around by the right-wing radio talk show hosts. It's awful. Absolute rubbish.

But the stories my friend has told me about what she thinks the Clintons have done are outrageous. Do I believe them? No. Never.

But does my friend? Absolutely yes. She is quite certain they are true. And when she talks about them, she gets this look in her eyes of the wise person to whom the truth has been revealed. That glint you get when you share juicy gossip about someone with another someone you trust and want to impress.

There is no way to get that kind of trash-talk out of people's minds. It has been in there since the 1990s, and it's there. It's become a part of the emotional fiber of the lives of too many Americans to be erased between now and November 2016. It may be nonsense, but it is indelible in the minds and hearts of many Americans, especially independent voters.

So I just don't think the Hillary supporters realize how tough her election will be if she is the nominee. The force of Republican talk radio is against them. It will be against Bernie too. But talk radio has been dissing the Clintons for about 20 years now. They have a huge headstart.

Feel the Bern!

[Jarqui]

50. I agree completely

They have so much more material to pick from with the Clintons.

There's not a lot of dirt on Bernie because he's been such a good guy.

Even the Republican debate: many invalid, inaccurate claims were made against Hillary. Did anyone challenge them for their accuracy? Not that I heard. If people hear stuff repeatedly and it goes unchallenged, people start to accept it.

When they couldn't find much on Obama, they made stuff up "palling around with terrorists", "born in Kenya", "closet Muslim", etc. It didn't stick that well (persuaded 20% or so) because it was bogus.

But when you've got material that's real, like her lying for example, they can attach crap to that is going to resonate and stick better because it revolves around some sinister truths.

I fear that when the GOP slime machine is done with her, it's not even going to be a contest. They're going to annihilate her with the ugliest ads and attacks in US political history. I swear they're rubbing their hands together and can't wait to go at it.

[Hepburn]

52. Same goes for the National Inquirer

I was getting my nails done and another patron at the shop saw my BERNIE 2106 bumper sticker. She was so glad that I did not support Hillary because of the article she had just read in the Inquirer that about Vince Foster. Hello? How old is that. The stuff is being re-cycled because of the RW hatred of Hillary. The lady talking to me about Vince Foster went on and on about how glad she was that this had been exposed, etc., and that there is NO WAY she would EVER vote for Hillary.

The above is what is going to happen if we Dems nominate Hillary. It is a never ending string of anti-Hillary rhetoric that is being pumped into the general public. There is a large amount of the general public that is totally uninformed and misinformed. Whether true or not, the worst of Hillary will be spewed over and over.

[Gothmog]

10. This article ignores all of Sanders' weaknesses including financial viability

This article ignores the real world and the fact that Sanders will not be viable in a general election contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may spend another billion dollars. Sanders will lack the resources to counter $200 to $400 million of negative ads. I read this article and kept expecting at some point that the author would think about the fact that campaigns take place in the real world where things like money are important .

[Vincardog]

19. Oh should we be AFRAID? Should we be so scared we vote for the candidate who guarantees a republican

WH in 2017? FUCK THAT. I am voting for the candidate that most closely represents ME and MY values not those of Wall Street.

You are invited to be on the right side of history and feel the Bern

[Segami]

25. So much effort expended to persuade people

that Bernie is unelectable.......and beware, they will ratcheting up the 'unelectable' noise machine more each passing day.

[Gothmog]

29. Sanders would be far more successful if he could demonstrate viability in general election

People keep asking this question and the answers have not been satisfactory. One reason that Sanders is not making inroads with African American voters is that they do not see Sanders as being viable http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/09/bernie_sanders_presidential_campaign_what_would_it_take_for_the_vermont.html

. For as much as black Americans might like his policy positions—which fit their enthusiasm for a stronger safety net—they’re also strategic voters, not ideological stalwarts. Electability is key, and as a consequence, they tend to back the establishment choice: Al Gore over Bill Bradley; John Kerry over John Edwards. On occasion, blacks will back a factional candidate, like Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988. But Jackson had the reverse problem—he couldn’t win enough whites.

Again, Sanders would have a stronger campaign if someone could provide a good explanation as to viability

[Enthusiast]

90. Huge +1!

[NuclearDem]

26. "Right side of history."

If the historians ever have to write about an American Holocaust of Muslims and Hispanics, I'm sure they'll include that sentiment in a footnote about the people whose irrational rage so blinded them they stuck their heads in the sand and ignored the real threat.

The ghosts of millions dead won't give a flying fuck about a speech to Goldman Sachs.

[Gothmog]

27. Nominating an underfunded out of mainstream candidate who is vulnerable to neg. ads is also dumb

For me one of the key issues is control of the SCOTUS and nominating a candidate who is not viable makes no sense
Rick Perry may be an idiot but he raised this issue a while back and all GOP operatives are aware of this issue and will be pushing it http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/perry-identifies-the-top-issue-the-2016-race

But over at Bloomberg Politics, Sahil Kapur reported over the weekend on a South Carolina event, where former Gov. Rick Perry (R) highlighted a central national issue that doesn’t generally get as much attention.

“Something I want you all to think about is that the next president of the United States, whoever that individual may be, could choose up to three, maybe even four members of the Supreme Court,” he said. “Now this isn’t about who’s going to be the president of the United States for just the next four years. This could be about individuals who have an impact on you, your children, and even our grandchildren. That’s the weight of what this election is really about.”

“That, I will suggest to you, is the real question we need to be asking ourselves,” he continued. “What would those justices look like if, let’s be theoretical here and say, if it were Hillary Clinton versus Rick Perry? And if that won’t make you go work, if I do decide to get into the race, then I don’t know what will.”

Whatever one might think of Perry or his skills as a potential president, that’s actually an excellent summary of an underappreciated issue. ThinkProgress’ Ian Millhiser, whom I wouldn’t describe as a Perry proponent, said the Texas Republican made “last week’s single most incisive statement about the 2016 election.”

This chart makes clear why control of the SCOTUS is ups for grabs

?itok=RU4tfAN1
The next POTUS could control the direction of the SCOTUS for a generation

[Vincardog]

28. Good point. Do you want 3 or 4 more supremes pushing in the CORPORATE interests? I would rather Bern

Appoints humanists.

[NuclearDem]

34. Damn corporatists!

Grr.

Sotomayor, Kagan, Souter, Ginsberg--goddamn corporatists, the lot of them. Always vote in favor of big business interests!

Grr.

[Gothmog]

47. If Sanders is the nominee, then it is probable that the GOP will be appointing these Justices

[bvar22]

54. If Hillary is the nominee,

then it is likely that the GOP will be appointing these Justices.

[Vincardog]

56. The probability of a GOP appointing the justices is GREATER if we allow Hillary to steal the nom.

Bernie gets the independent vote as well as some moderate republicans.
Hillary Energizes the GOP and depresses the democratic vote,
Which seems to better option? Hint Feel the Bern.

[Gothmog]

58. How is Hillary Clinton stealing the nomination-by getting more support from Democrats?

I am curious how you think that Hillary Clinton is stealing the election. The polling shows that she is being supported by more members of the Democratic Party than Sanders in key states. The only way that Hillary Clinton will get the nomination is by getting more votes and more delegates than the other candidates. Do you consider that stealing?

I understand that you may be frustrated in that your candidate is not being supported by a majority of the party but that is how politics work. As I have repeatedly noted, Sanders needs to broaden his appeal if he wants the nomination and right now Sanders is doing well in four or so states with mainly white voting populations.

[Fawke Em]

85. Not so much "stealing" as "collusion."

It's quite obvious that the DNC is keeping the Democratic debates as far way from the eyes of viewers as humanly possible. DWS's choice of debate times is atrocious. And why? Is it because their (her?) chosen candidate can easily be nailed on her flip-flops, her scandals and her poor foreign policy decisions.

The media has also decided not to cover Bernie. This is also quite obvious. I used to be a reporter - a real one, not a corporate-owned one - and if there was an unlikely candidate like Bernie, who had raised nearly $50 million from 2,000,000 individual donor and none from a SuperPAC, who had a message that excited Millennials, who packs large "rock" and sports stadiums, you bet I'd be covering him. THAT is a story.

To your other point, social media - despite what Hillary fans want to believe - is a barometer of the country's thinking and Bernie IS widening his appeal with blacks and Latinos. I can see it just in the Twitter feeds I follow. The people who #FeeltheBern have gone from a lot of white faces to a lot of faces of various colors. I don't have the numbers on it, but I follow it often and can see the change.

[Fed up in NJ]

96. Notice the crickets....

.... as soon as Bernie supporters mention how the DNC, through their blatant acts, are pushing Hillary at us and suppressing the electorate learning more about Bernie through Debates? From 26 debates in 2008 to 6 in 2016 not to mention putting them on the air on Saturdays?!?! No favoritism here!!!!

[sonofspy777]

20. Bernie Weaknesses

There are no REAL ones.

[Gothmog]

23. Why Sanders is not going to be President if five words

The Washington Post has a good article on one of Sanders' major weaknesses https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/12/why-bernie-sanders-isnt-going-to-be-president-in-5-words/

The simple political fact is that if Sanders did ever manage to win the Democratic presidential nomination — a long shot but far from a no shot at this point — Republicans would simply clip Sanders's answer to Todd above and put it in a 30-second TV ad. That would, almost certainly, be the end of Sanders's viability in a general election.

Americans might be increasingly aware of the economic inequality in the country and increasingly suspicious of so-called vulture capitalism — all of which has helped fuel Sanders's rise. But we are not electing someone who is an avowed socialist to the nation's top political job. Just ain't happening.

It will be easy for the Kochs to bury Sanders under negative ads

[Vincardog]

31. Sanders has been known as a democratic socialist for decades. He gets over 80% approval rating in

home state. PPPFFFTTT that is your "argument" going up in smoke.

[Gothmog]

44. Vermont is very different from the rest of the United States

For example, a friend was attacked for merely attending Sanders one event in Houston. http://www.fortbendstar.com/2015/08/05/theres-no-room-for-socialism-in-fort-bend-county/ The polling nationwide on the terms "socialism" and "socialist" is not favorable. In the real world, real campaigns and real political operations conduct something that is called polling. Polling helps real campaigns refine their message and avoid traps. I know that the Sanders campaign considers polling to be a waste of time and money which worries me as to whether Sanders is a viable candidate. DWS is well aware of this polling
.
From Pew http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/little-change-in-publics-response-to-capitalism-socialism/

The word ‘socialism’ triggers a negative reaction for most Americans, but certainly not for all. Six-in-ten (60%) people say they have a negative reaction to the word, while just 31% have a positive reaction. Those numbers are little changed from April 2010....

By contrast, socialism is a far more divisive word, with wide differences of opinion along racial, generational, socioeconomic and political lines. Fully nine-in-ten conservative Republicans (90%) view socialism negatively, while nearly six-in-ten liberal Democrats (59%) react positively. Low-income Americans are twice as likely as higher-income Americans to offer a positive assessment of socialism (43% among those with incomes under $30,000, 22% among those earning $75,000 or more).

From Gallop http://www.gallup.com/poll/125645/Socialism-Viewed-Positively-Americans.aspx

PRINCETON, NJ -- More than one-third of Americans (36%) have a positive image of "socialism," while 58% have a negative image. Views differ by party and ideology, with a majority of Democrats and liberals saying they have a positive view of socialism, compared to a minority of Republicans and conservatives.



....Socialism

Socialism had the lowest percentage positive rating and the highest negative rating of any term tested. Still, more than a third of Americans say they have a positive image of socialism.

Exactly how Americans define "socialism" or what exactly they think of when they hear the word is not known. The research simply measures Americans' reactions when a survey interviewer reads the word to them -- an exercise that helps shed light on connotations associated with this frequently used term.

There are significant differences in reactions to "socialism" across ideological and partisan groups:

A majority of 53% of Democrats have a positive image of socialism, compared to 17% of Republicans.
Sixty-one percent of liberals say their image of socialism is positive, compared to 39% of moderates and 20% of conservatives

It takes a massive PR campaign to change these deeply held positions. The Sanders speech tomorrow will not be the type of effort that will be necessary to change these deeply held positions.

[JDPriestly]

98. So, considering that growing income inequality is destroying our middle class as statistics prove,

What is your plan to bring our economy back to some balance while protecting our conomy?

Growth is a nice conxept, a wonderful word. Hillary loves it.

But growth in recent years has increased the wealth overall but. Diminished the share of the wealth owned and paid to say something like the lowest 60 percent of the American population.

Is that in your view a good thing?

If not, what would you do to spread the wealth and especially the share so as to maintain a healthy balance in our economy?

[AgingAmerican]

83. Nobody cares what the GOP say

Even their own supporters, given the fact Sanders won the last GOP debate.

Hillary supporters are reduced to saying 'Boo! GOP talking points! Boo!'

[passiveporcupine]

46. Maybe you don't get how many people are going to be turned off by the ads

that cost millions, and vote for someone who wants to get money out of politics. This affects all parties. Everyone is fed up.

[Gothmog]

49. Negative ads work which is why they are used

Modern political campaigns require money. You can pretend that people will ignore negative ads but the real world shows that these ads are efffective. While some people may have cut the cable and do not watch TV, that is not true for the voters who will be affected by negative ads.

Good luck in trying to run a national campaign without adequate financial resources. I like living in the real world.

[passiveporcupine]

53. In a normal election, I'd agree with you, but

the wheels have been turning and the country is on fire with anger over the economic inequities lately, and how that is represented by money in politics.

[Gothmog]

55. And yet this fire is not being reflected in the polls or the media coverage

It is very difficult to overcome negative ads when you have the finanical resources and it is impossible when you are underfunded. The so-called revolution that Sanders is relying on is not catching on any more than the income inequality of Occupy WallStreet had any impact on past elections.

Again, if there is so much fire and anger on this issues, then such fire and anger would be showing up in the polling results. The pollings results and the Predictwise predictions all reflect a general preception that Sanders is not viable in the general election. If the fire and anger you mentioned were shared by a significant number of other Democrats, then these polling results would be different.

Please support the candidate of your choice. The premise of the OP of this thread that is Sanders is the more electable candidate and I have not found that that premise to be correct. I like Sanders and he is closer to my positions according to the online quiz or poll but I live in the real world and I am not convinced that Sanders is viable in a general election contest which is why I am supporting Hillary Clinton.

In any event, I will be supporting the nominee of the Democratic Party in the general election.

[Fawke Em]

86. Not being reflected in media coverage is more of a diagnosis and not a symptom.

The media is corporately-owned - we all know this. It's not a secret.

That they aren't covering Bernie isn't because he isn't popular - his donations, his fundraising, his packing stadiums, his rise from 2 percent to 40 percent prove that he is. They aren't covering him because he doesn't fit their narrative and challenges their owners.

[AgingAmerican]

81. The Koch's threw all their money behind Scott Walker

How did that work out?

Jeb! started out with $200 million in his war chest. Getting a lot of bang for his buck?

Money can't buy you love.

[Scuba]

11. If we really, really want a Republican in the White House we should nominate Hillary.

She would be routed in the general election if she is our candidate.

[NuclearDem]

16. "Who's Spoiling Now?"

Still the ones threatening write-ins and third-party votes if their candidate doesn't win the primary. Absolutely hilarious self-fulfilling prophecy.

[dreamnightwind]

59. You miss the point of the OP

which is in large part about Hillary's polarizing effect, and Bernie's support among the huge independent demographic. Bernie's appeal to independent voters is far larger than your "concern" about Democrats that might not vote for Hillary in the general election, so it seems odd that you focus on that.

In addition, nominating Bernie could restore our party's moral authority, which has been lost due to their selling out to corporate interests. The result would be a huge movement of independents back to the Democratic Party.

The Republican Party is a cesspool that serves nothing but corporate interests, and Democrats are so compromised they can't even put up a convincing argument to most Americans that they would represent our interests well. Change that, and you change everything.

Hillary doesn't change that, in fact she makes it worse. Bernie absolutely changes it.

[WillyT]

21. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[libdem4life]

30. As I see it, each have large minuses...Bernie is not well known and there's that I-Socialist label.

Hillary is not well-liked outside the Democratic Party and has an national untrustworthy label. Also, Bernie has more supporters, but less money than Hillary.

A lot of events could alter some of these factors, but I'm going to stick with, for now, that Bernie has the best chance of turning around his negatives.

On to Iowa...the beginning.

[Vincardog]

32. Add the fact that the Independents will swing the election and Bernie is a clear winner.

[libdem4life]

35. That may be the time that his Sanders-I is to his advantage.

[MissDeeds]

36. Woot!!!

K&R

[Fantastic Anarchist]

38. Please let this happen.

My body is ready.

[Betty Karlson]

40. K&R for exposure.

And bookmarked for later viewing. We should quote this article whenever an opportunity presents itself.

[billhicks76]

41. Hillary Hands Election To Trump

Clintonites to blame

[Uncle Joe]

51. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Segami.

[reformist2]

57. Hillary supporters blatantly ignore all the polls that show her just losing to various Repugs.

I get that, because it obviously doesn't fit their narrative. But it's especially hypocritical, since they usually are so poll-obsessed.

[in_cog_ni_to]

60. kick! n/t

[Tommy2Tone]

80. Huff PO hates Hillary

and another of their hit pieces re-posted here still won't get him the nomination. If he is so popular with independents, he should run as an independent.

[dana_b]

87. "if his Independent supporters will only deign to contaminate..

themselves by participating in the primary of the Democrats they otherwise disdain"

That's a bit harsh! lol.. But FYI - there are a few of us out there that have "deigned to contaminate ourselves" (I really don't think like that). I am now a registered Dem so that I can vote for Bernie. My daughter, her boyfriend and even my 30+ years as a Republican sister are all registering as Dems also in order to vote for Bernie. I realize that we don't matter much in the grand scheme but it's possible that others are thinking like us as well.

I voted for Obama twice but never in the primary season of 2008.

[Enthusiast]

89. Kicked and recommended a whole bunch!

[Nitram]

91. Why would Democrats be in peril if the underestimated Berrnie's electability? nt

[Progressive dog]

92. OH Yeah, I intend to see who the Republicans would prefer

before I vote in the Democratic primary. LOL
Actually, I intend to vote for the candidate who has been a Democrat for more than a few months.