Dec 10 NEW*** CBS National Poll: Clinton 52%, Sanders 32, O'M 2 %

[riversedge]

Congrats to Hillary and TEAM

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-donald-trump-top-ted-cruz-second-hillary-clinton-over-bernie-sanders/

CBS News December 10, 2015, 7:00 AM


Poll: Donald Trump back on top, with Ted Cruz climbing into second


By Anthony Salvanto, Jennifer De Pinto, Sarah Dutton and Fred Backus
The Republican Race

Thirty-five percent of Republican primary voters support Trump, up 13 points since October, and his highest level of support in CBS News polling. Ted Cruz (16 percent) has moved into second place, while Ben Carson, who led the October poll, has dropped to third.

Play Video

Trump voters continue to be more firm in their support. Fifty-one percent of his backers say their minds are made up about him, compared to just a quarter of voters who support a candidate other than Trump.

Trump leads among both men and women. He has more than a 20-point lead among non-college graduates (and a smaller lead ...............

Hillary Clinton continues to lead Bernie Sanders by 20 points: she receives 52 percent of Democratic primary voters' support, while Sanders gets 32 percent. Just 2 percent support Martin O'Malley.


Clinton leads among many voter groups - men, women, liberals, moderates, non-whites and voters over age 45. But Sanders performs better with voters under 45 and independents.

[mucifer]

1. I actually would have never thought Bernie would be doing this well

with the minimal amount of press he gets and the lack of support from big donors.

[brooklynite]

3. The Minimal Press...

[Eric J in MN]

7. Now do that with "ABC World News Tonight"

...and similar weeknight broadcast shows.

"ABC World News Tonight" has about 8 million viewers vs. about 3 million for "Meet the Press."

[Agschmid]

31. So Kimmel doesn't matter?

[Eric J in MN]

39. The Tonight Show with Jimmy Kimmel has 4 million viewers

...half-the-audience of "ABC World News Tonight."

[lunamagica]

63. And don't forget Univision, which has feaured him quite a few times. eom

Really, the "minimal press" meme is absurd.

[lunamagica]

65. More "minimal press"

?quality=75&strip=color&w=814

?1447888863

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. Bernie "does better with Independents".

But they're not an important swing group, are they?

[pnwmom]

4. They're not as critical as African Americans, Latinos, and women. n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. The "groups" you mention are not considered "swing goups"

They are widely seen as constituting most of the Democratic base. Critically important, yes. Essential to winning most Democratic primary contests, yes. But Democrats count on those voters as mostly being in their camp during any General Election. Republicans of course have their base also. Who are the "swing voters" who often determine whether it is a Democrat or a Republican who actually becomes President? Independents are very high on that list.

The current national snapshot of the Democratic race shows advantage Clinton, largely because of current "minority" voter preferences. National polls historically change rapidly however once actual returns come in from early primary states. Unless African Americans, Latinos, and women are literally tuned off by Sanders, instead of simply backing Clinton over him right now, the ability to win the support of Independents is an a important indicator of a specific Democrats chances to win the Fall election.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. President Obama lost the independent vote in 2012 and was re-elected nonetheless

"the ability to win the support of Independents is an a important indicator of a specific Democrats chances to win the Fall election..."

President Obama lost the independent vote in 2012 and was re-elected nonetheless:


http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2012/

"... National polls historically change rapidly however once actual returns come in from early primary states. Unless African Americans, Latinos, and women are literally tuned off by Sanders, instead of simply backing Clinton over him right now..."

Please provide documentation for your assertion.

Thank you in advance.

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. Howard Dean - 2004

I didn't say anything controversial - it is common knowledge that some candidates crash and others rise once actual voting begins during primary season. That doesn't mandate that any specific candidate will have their standing change significantly, but it quite frequently happens.

Of course a Democrat can lose Independents and still win, but it doesn't make it easier. It depends on the big picture. Under no realistic scenario could it have happened, but LBJ could have lost the African American and Latino vote against Goldwater and still have defeated him - talking strictly by the numbers.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. Could you please elaborate?

Under no realistic scenario could it have happened, but LBJ could have lost the African American and Latino vote against Goldwater and still have defeated him - talking strictly by the numbers.

That's because LBJ was the last Democrat to win a plurality or majority of the white vote in a presidential election. I don't believe we will ever see that again, at the national level.

Howard Dean crashed and burned before one vote was counted. He didn't win one primary or caucus.

I just question the argument that if Hillary Clinton loses IA or NH her minority support will crumble. It didn't crumble for her in 2008 when she went on to winning two thirds of the Hispanic vote despite losing the IA caucus and getting obliterated in South Carolina. I wish I would have bookmarked the link that showed that if African Americans voted like their white counterparts, i.e. by economic class and highest level of education Hillary would have garnered 62% of the Democratic primary vote instead of the 49% she did.

I don't see much evidence in Democratic primary history that minority support is contingent on a candidate doing well in Iowa and New Hampshire. In 1984 Walter Mondale was upset in New Hampshire but that didn't prevent him from splitting the minority vote with Jesse Jackson and winning the nomination. Gary Hart waged a brilliant campaign nonetheless but we can see in retrospect it was really the presence of Jesse Jackson and the minority support he received that would have went to Walter Mondale that kept it close... In 1988 The Duke won NH and the primaries but Jesse Jackson garnered the lion's share of the minority vote. In 1992 Bill Clinton lost IA and NH but never lost the minority vote and consequently won the nomination.

In 2000 despite a scare in NH Gore won the minority vote and consequently the nomination.

In 2004 Kerry won the primary vote and consequently the nomination. I would argue in that instance he won the minority vote by default. African Americans and Latinos are the most stalwart Democratic voters and are consequently the most likely to support the candidate who has the blessing of the establishment.

2008 was an anomaly. Once Barack Obama demonstrated his crossover appeal by winning a predominately homogeneous caucus African Americans gravitated to his candidacy in droves. In retrospect this was to be expected. Ceteris paribus, they had a choice between Clinton and Obama and made the choice that made history. And as I previously stated Clinton's Hispanic support never wavered.

The last three presidents have lost the New Hampshire primary while the last five presidents have won the South Carolina primary. Primary success is not contingent on success in New Hampshire.


_________

"... National polls historically change rapidly however once actual returns come in from early primary states. Unless African Americans, Latinos, and women are literally tuned off by Sanders, instead of simply backing Clinton over him right now..."

I would argue it has more to do with affinity for Hillary than antipathy for Bernie.

[Tom Rinaldo]

44. I don't deny that there is a true affinity for Hillary among "minority" Democrats

And like you, I don't think that support for her indicates disdain for Sanders. We have three announced Democratic Candidates who, broadly speaking, it can be said are extremely good on civil rights issues in general. Of the three Hillary is by far the most familiar figure to African American and Latino voters. She has had, by far, the highest national profile of the three, and has had it for decades. That immediately gives her a leg up on her challengers.

On another DU thread today I read about one African American who wondered whether Sanders was pandering for Black votes when in Baltimore. That person then went to the internet to research Sanders and discovered that Bernie was at the "I Have a Dream" speech, and organized protests against Segregation when in College. That was enough to reassure this person that Sanders is legitimate in his concerns over civil rights. Hillary doesn't need anyone to do research on her record. She was first lady in the Bill Clinton Presidency. Hillary has earned her support from minorities, I grant that. But that doesn't mean that she is the only Democrat worthy of that support. She is however the only one who has been widely known on the national stage for decades. Strong familiarity with her prior stances, not to mention the fact that she has represented a state with a significant minority population (unlike Sanders), serves her well.

Howard Dean did not crash and burn before the first vote was counted. He and Dick Gephardt were the favorites to win the Iowa caucuses prior to Election Day there. Dean crashed in polling AFTER the first vote was counted. Edwards surged in national polling AFTER a surprise second place showing i Iowa, etc.

I didn't say that minority support is a big factor in Democrats doing well in Iowa or NH, and I do agree that minority support is a big factor in a Democrat winning the nomination and later the Presidency. Sanders would need strong minority support to win either and/or both. Hillary's husband used to be called (metaphorically) the first Black President. I am not surprised nor do I begrudge that she enters this race with strong minority support.

I am not happy that the states leading off primary season, Iowa and New Hampshire, are so white. I am happy however that they are so small, because that allows a relatively unknown candidate to close the familiarity gap with candidates who have long enjoyed a high profile on the national stage. Personally, I would like to see the District of Columbia moved up on the primary schedule to also vote during one of the first two weeks of the season. Like Iowa and NH campaigning there can be managed on a relatively small budget and voters can be reached in person on a retail politics level (though media buys would still be expensive).

You said above "In 2004 Kerry won the primary vote and consequently the nomination", but I assume you meant he lost the presidency. Again, I agree that Sanders will need to generate more enthusiasm within minority communities to win the nomination and the Presidency. My point is, IMO, that he has both the track record and the policy positions that can enable him to do so once more minority voters become much more familiar with him. Realistically speaking, that won't happen in large enough numbers to help Sanders UNLESS he does very well in Iowa and NH kicking off much more attention paid to him. That is his only possible Sanders path to victory short of Clinton imploding for some mysterious and unlikely reason.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. BTW, IMHO , much of these race tinged threads are silly

You said above "In 2004 Kerry won the primary vote and consequently the nomination", but I assume you meant he lost the presidency.

I meant to write " "In 2004 Kerry won the minority vote and consequently the nomination"

I didn't say that minority support is a big factor in Democrats doing well in Iowa or NH, and I do agree that minority support is a big factor in a Democrat winning the nomination and later the Presidency.

I know you didn't. My point is the the IA and NH electorate look very different from , say, the CA and TX electorate and I don't see the mechanism by which success in one state leads to success in another state.

BTW, IMHO , much of these race tinged threads are silly. It has more to do with the constituencies these candidates represent and the issues they have focused on than anything else.

[Tom Rinaldo]

49. Good discussion. Thanks n/t

[Laser102]

40. Did not know that. Good point.

[Tom Rinaldo]

46. That used to be the talking point of Sanders supporters though, remember that?

...back when everyone assumed that "a self described Socialist" could not possibly appeal to Independents more than Hillary Clinton. Regardless of who wins the nomination, I find this to be a remarkable trend in American politics, one that the typical pundits never saw coming - either that or they tried their best to bury it before anyone could notice. It has important implications moving forward - and many say (myself included) that it helps explain why Clinton has moved to the left on a number of issues in the face of the Sanders challenge.

[Historic NY]

51. But they are reliable voters especially in closed primarys .

and right now that's where were at.

[VanillaRhapsody]

27. should we let them do to Democrats what the Teabaggers did to the Republican party?

[Tom Rinaldo]

45. Are you equating Independents and Teabagers?

Show me a single prominent national Democrat, Hillary included, who does not acknowledge that it is important for Democrats to attempt to win over Independents to their side rather than the Republican one.

[VanillaRhapsody]

69. the Teabaggers held the Right hostage...they ARE their fringe..

look where that got them

Teabaggers hate their "establishment party" too!

[Tom Rinaldo]

70. Sorry, you have me confused

I thought we were talking about the role of Independent voters from what was said upthread. Now it looks more like you are attacking the Sanders/Warren wing of the Democratic Party as the Democratic fringe holding the Democratic Party hostage.

[VanillaRhapsody]

71. It was suggested that we HAVE to do what the far left wants "or else"

and that is exactly what the Teabaggers have done to the Republican party.....they hold them hostage.

[Tom Rinaldo]

74. "It was sugested" by whom?

Lots of things get suggested by lots of people, and where did you see an "or else" threatened? Honestly, I'm not sure what your point is or why you see a need to make it in our discussion, except that you seem to be implying that Democrats like me who support Bernie Sanders constitute the "far left" in American politics, and threaten the Democratic Party by being too extreme.

Which brings us full circle. We have here a poll that finds Independents more likely to support Bernie Sanders than Hillary Clinton. As a group (individuals can and do always vary) Independents are pretty much smack dab in the middle of what is referred to as "the Center" in American politics, not the "Far Left".

[VanillaRhapsody]

76. The post I was replying to...

No Independents are NOT...that is ridiculous....

Sanders is a Democratic Socialist (or was) that is NOT Center politics...

"But they're not an important swing group, are they?"

that's a threat....to hold the Democratic Party to non-Democrats whims...Because they are an "important swing group"...we better do what THEY want.

[Tom Rinaldo]

77. Acknowledging the legitimate importance of a swing group

is NOT the same as saying we should become slavishly beholden to it. I guarantee you the Clinton camp, AND the Sanders camp, AND the O'Malley camp all consider what legitimate overtures they can make, consistent with their platforms, to win over Independent voters. Sometimes it is nothing other than assuring them that they will at least look at their legitimate concerns more honestly than would the Republicans, with no compromising of any principles involved.

Most people call the broad Democratic coalition "Center Left" rather than saying it is centrist. What is interesting here is that someone like Sanders is thought of favorably by so many arguably centrist Independents.

[VanillaRhapsody]

78. No....not center left.....

That would be Democrats.. .they are not...

Sanders is not "center-left"

[Tom Rinaldo]

79. He has policies, that is what it comes down to. The rest is just labels.

They are either good for America or not. Everyone has their own opinion of what is good for America. You have yours, I have mine. We can and do differ it seems at least to some extent. The Democratic Party trusted Sanders with some pretty important committee positions in the Senate and they have welcomed him into the Democratic debates for President, I fully intend to support Hillary for President should she emerge with the Democratic nomination for President. Will you support Bernie if he does?

[MoonRiver]

41. Sorry, but Bernie is not doing well, except maybe in NH and Vermont.

You can parse the polls every which way and the fact remains that he is losing to HRC.

[Bryce Butler]

53. There are more Independents than Democrats or Repubs..

Democrat: 30%
Repubs: 26%
Independent: 43%

http://www.gallup.com/poll/180440/new-record-political-independents.aspx

[Prixen]

55. If they are so important, why is Sanders losing by 20% overall?

Explain.

[Tom Rinaldo]

57. Trump is winning on the Republican side by 20%. Explain

Do you think that means he has a lock on winning the Presidency should he get the Republican nomination? No matter what else may also be true, partisan primary voters are a relatively small subset of the general electorate. With the exception of a few open primary states - like NH - Independent voters are far more significant in determining who wins the Presidency than who wins the nomination of a major party.

[Prixen]

58. Hillary beats Trump in most polls

Next question.

[Tom Rinaldo]

59. So does Bernie. By more. n/t

[Prixen]

72. Therefore, Hillary beats Trump even while losing independents to Bernie

And there goes your initial theory.

[Tom Rinaldo]

75. No offense meant, honestly, but that is simply wrong.

My "initial theory" was that Sanders seems to be doing better with a key group of "swing voters" than Clinton. Even if you take that to the extreme it only provides some evidence that Sanders is "more electable" than Clinton, not that he is the only electable Democrat. If, and of course it is an "if", the ultimate Republican candidate picks up more strength in general over time for any reason; another terrorist attack - whatever, BUT Sanders continue to have more support from Independents than does Clinton, that difference in degree of Independent support might then provide the winning or losing margin for Democrats in November, based on who we run. I already agreed above that in some elections the majority of Independents could support a Republican without that Republican actually winning.

However MORE support from Independents is generally better than LESS support from Independents. You could say that was my theory.

[Robbins]

5. If she is doing so great with men and liberals

why is she running ad pandering to women.moving to right to attack bernie on taxes and war,and hinting bernie is sexist and anti-woman.

besides that I don't have fault.considering MSM blackout of bernie she would be in freefall if in national poll,which is meaningless as past election cycles proved for primarys.she wasn't ahead.She was ahead of Obama by larger numbers back in 2007 and she still lost.

[Laser102]

42. Because this is the best chance for a woman to become President. One more barrier down.

[Omaha Steve]

6. 384 Democratic primary voters

National Poll???

Is it 7 per state? More in populated states? Just early states ?

[Godhumor]

11. Please, please tell me you were just being silly and actually know why your question is asinine

Pretty please.

[Omaha Steve]

13. Explain away

Educate me so I might caucus for Hillary.

[brooklynite]

15. Sigh...if we must

A National poll is just that: a poll reflecting the attitudes of the national population. To that end you want an appropriate mix of male/female; young/old; white/black/hispanic/other, but you don't need to reflect indidividual State preferences, because that's not the poll's target.

Now, if you're going to claim it's not possible to capture the positions of the nation with this sample size, we're moving into a denial of the entire validity of the polling process. Feel free to espouse that position; it did Mitt Romney a world of good.

[riversedge]

18. You need a treat--educating the masses is hard work....

Hillary for NH Retweeted
Marlou Taenzer ?@MarlouTaenzer Dec 7

Because @HillaryforNH volunteers are the best! Lucky to work with such an amazing crew everyday #Hillary2016

[Omaha Steve]

19. NYT: What’s the Matter With Polling & more

The title story is second story below. Asinine? Did you just get Berned (edit to add cookies)?

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/12/the-front-runner-fallacy/413173/

The Front-Runner Fallacy
Early U.S. presidential polls have tended to be wildly off-target. There’s no reason to think this time is different.

DAVID GREENBERG DECEMBER 2015 ISSUE

In november 1975, one year before the obscure Georgia governor Jimmy Carter was elected president, the field of Democratic presidential aspirants was in chaos. According to the polls, voters’ top choices were Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts (23 percent), Governor George Wallace of Alabama (19 percent), and former Vice President Hubert Humphrey (17 percent). Unfortunately, only one of these men—a widely reviled racist—was actually running. To be sure, there was a grass-roots favorite expected to vault into contention by winning the Iowa caucuses, but it wasn’t Carter. It was Senator Birch Bayh of Indiana. Carter was netting low single digits. Newsweek explained that he could become viable “only in the long-odds event that [he] can stop George Wallace” and get the southern vote.

Four years later, Carter was, of course, president. And the late-1979 polling data strongly suggested that he would be dethroned—by Ted Kennedy. The great liberal hope for Democrats despairing of Carter’s incompetence, Kennedy had been scoring 60 percent in matchups against the incumbent earlier in the season. In the late fall he was still favored by Democratic majorities. One New York Times survey found black voters choosing Kennedy over Carter 53 to 15 percent, conservative Democrats favoring him 58 to 22 percent, and even southerners backing him 44 to 29 percent. But in the end, Kennedy triumphed in only 10 states, mostly in the Northeast.

In 1987, after the Democratic front-runner, Gary Hart, withdrew from the race following questions about his private life, the new leader, with 25 percent in the polls, was a candidate with no real prospect of winning: the Reverend Jesse Jackson. Jackson’s chief adversary was the Illinois senator and unreconstructed liberal Paul Simon, who was surging in Iowa. The party’s eventual nominee, Michael Dukakis, was in the fight, especially in New Hampshire, but The New York Times noted, “Recent surveys show him to be increasingly vulnerable in the state.”

FULL story at link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/opinion/sunday/whats-the-matter-with-polling.html?_r=0

By CLIFF ZUKIN JUNE 20, 2015

OVER the past two years, election polling has had some spectacular disasters. Several organizations tracking the 2014 midterm elections did not catch the Republican wave that led to strong majorities in both houses; polls in Israel badly underestimated Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s strength, and pollsters in Britain predicted a close election only to see the Conservatives win easily. What’s going on here? How much can we trust the polls as we head toward the 2016 elections?

Election polling is in near crisis, and we pollsters know. Two trends are driving the increasing unreliability of election and other polling in the United States: the growth of cellphones and the decline in people willing to answer surveys. Coupled, they have made high-quality research much more expensive to do, so there is less of it. This has opened the door for less scientifically based, less well-tested techniques. To top it off, a perennial election polling problem, how to identify “likely voters,” has become even thornier.

In terms of speed, the growth of cellphones is like few innovations in our history. About 10 years ago, opinion researchers began taking seriously the threat that the advent of cellphones posed to our established practice of polling people by calling landline phone numbers generated at random. At that time, the National Health Interview Survey, a high-quality government survey conducted through in-home interviews, estimated that about 6 percent of the public used only cellphones. The N.H.I.S. estimate for the first half of 2014 found that this had grown to 43 percent, with another 17 percent “mostly” using cellphones. In other words, a landline-only sample conducted for the 2014 elections would miss about three-fifths of the American public, almost three times as many as it would have missed in 2008.

Since cellphones generally have separate exchanges from landlines, statisticians have solved the problem of finding them for our samples by using what we call “dual sampling frames” — separate random samples of cell and landline exchanges. The problem is that the 1991 Telephone Consumer Protection Act has been interpreted by the Federal Communications Commission to prohibit the calling of cellphones through automatic dialers, in which calls are passed to live interviewers only after a person picks up the phone. To complete a 1,000-person survey, it’s not unusual to have to dial more than 20,000 random numbers, most of which do not go to actual working telephone numbers. Dialing manually for cellphones takes a great deal of paid interviewer time, and pollsters also compensate cellphone respondents with as much as $10 for their lost minutes.

FULL story at link.

[brooklynite]

25. So every time Sanders supporters point to a poll where he's ahead in NH, or in head-to-heads...

...you'll be correcting their misapplied enthusiasm?

[firebrand80]

21. “If you don’t believe in random sampling...

the next time you go to the doctor for a blood test, tell ell him to take it all” - A. C. Nielsen

[Omaha Steve]

23. You know Nielsen stopped doing POTUS polls

You knew that right?

[firebrand80]

24. You know that's not my point, right?

[Omaha Steve]

30. Ya I do

My point is blood random sample isn't the same as polling for POTUS.

[NurseJackie]

9. Bernie can't win a nomination with just 1/3rd of the vote. Plus, it's ...

... really a shame that he has precious few endorsements.

[Stuckinthebush]

16. Sanders will never be the Dem nominee

He may be a VP pick for Hillary, but he will never be the nominee. The math just isn't with him. After many, many months of campaigning, he still only has 30 to 35 percent of the Democratic support. He may win New Hampshire or Iowa but those states are notoriously bad at predicting outcomes. The south is in the bag for Clinton and super Tuesday will be all Clinton.

I - like most DUers - favor both of the candidates. The reality, however, is that Clinton will be the nominee. The concern I have is that a large number of DUers will be hostile to our candidate because they have convinced themselves that she is a terrible Republican. I think we will see a lot of tombstones in the future and that's not good for this community.

Anyway, there is no doubt. Clinton will win the nomination.

[workinclasszero]

22. Looks the same to me

Except the VP slot. I think a younger, up and coming leader like Julian Castro would be better.

[MoonRiver]

81. There's no way he will be offered a VP slot, nor should he be.

74 is really too old to be running for president, much less VP, who usually are angling for a run at the presidency later.

[workinclasszero]

82. Right I agree

I keep seeing posts demanding that Bernie or Senator Warren be the VP pick and neither one makes any sense IMO.

[Omaha Steve]

37. Many of those that she had in 08 too

How did that work out?

[NurseJackie]

48. Oh dear me! I never realized! It's EXACTLY like 2008! No differences at all! We're doomed!!

Oh wait, I forgot ... I just checked my calendar ... it's not 2008 at all.

[Omaha Steve]

50. "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it."

[NurseJackie]

52. So true!! It's clear that Hillary has learned a lot from her first campaign. And it shows!!

[Robbins]

10. You shouldn't be jumping for joy

Republicans are more enthustic about voting which to me says bernie supporters enthusted about him.clinton supporters less show.and plenty of people aren't wild about another Clinton presidency.

Since clinton,her term,and her supporters have been going out of their way to fix race for Clinton and to attack bernie and his supporters good luck if she wins,which i won't cede to,nomination without at least some of us bernie supporters.

[Helen Borg]

17. Well done Bernie!

On track to victory!

[VanillaRhapsody]

28. You are kidding right?

that "path to victory" has only 52 days left until the first election.....he better get to stepping on that path!

[Helen Borg]

35. Do I sense a tiny bit of insecurity?

[VanillaRhapsody]

36. why on earth would I feel insecure?

are you reading the same polls I am?

[Betty Karlson]

26. So once more, the Clinton advantage has shrunk, and she's recipitously close to dipping under 50.

She is just not inevitable.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. Actually she increased her lead from nineteen to twenty points over Senator Sanders

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html#polls

12/4 -12/8

HRC 52% SBS 32% MOM 2%


11/6- 11/10

HRC 52% SBS 33% MOM 5%

[andrewv1]

54. I don't know if you are on David Brock's payroll or....

just in another reality but Hillary has unfavorability numbers "through the roof."
So, what does that mean?
That she can't win in the General Election.
It's plain & simple & that perception will not away by November.
This of course is not about winning in the primaries but all about the General, & historically someone with that type of baggage will not be the next President.
And although I believe polls showing Bernie as the one who can win in the General, many Democrats & Sanders Supporters would be willing to look elsewhere for another candidate if they could for someone who wasn't so divisive (look no further than the factions here).

[DemocratSinceBirth]

60. Hi

I don't know if you are on David Brock's payroll

You lost the argument from the jump with your ad hominem attack but I'll ignore it, this time.

That she can't win in the General Election

She is leading in the polls, the predictions markets, and the betting markets.

I am so confident of her impending victory that I will literally bet my life on it. Since that would be a wager no one will take I have thought of another...

Is there an arena in your city?

If Hillary loses the presidency I will streak in front of Staples Center immediately before the first Lakers or Clippers game after the election as long as the person who takes my wager promises to do the same in his or her hometown when she wins. I will put it on youtube under "Man Loses Bet"

Supporters would be willing to look elsewhere for another candidate if they could for someone who wasn't so divisive (look no further than the factions here).

I literally couldn't care less about the actions of a desperate and disgruntled dozen or so people.

[andrewv1]

62. No...

that wasn't in attack, & you still haven't addressed her vulnerability.

Right now she's leading in the primary polls because of name recognition & elite donor money backing.

Look, I admire your confidence & enthusiasm, but she's just not well liked.

Again, why don't try telling us how she can overcome these handicaps in the General Election?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

64. Because elections aren't held in a vacuum...

Her opponent will presumably be as liked or unliked as she is , depending on how you want to characterize it, and if it is Trump he is already more disliked.

[andrewv1]

66. So....

you are basing it on likability?
Here's the problem with that.

The potential Trump supporter runs on fear, which translates in their minds to enthusiasm & they will get out & vote.
For Clinton to win however, you'll need every faction of Democratic voters out & not just her base like yourself.

Unfortunately because of her baggage (rightly perceived or not) she won't be able to keep Democrats from staying home...
That dynamics is what the polls are not showing.

And I do apologize if you thought I was attacking you.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. "The potential Trump supporter runs on fear."

"The potential Trump supporter runs on fear."

When voters look at equally experienced male and female politicians, “the man will still be seen as more capable on issues of national security and defense,” Meredith Conroy, a professor of political science at California State University, San Bernardino, wrote me in response to my inquiry about the current election. But “Hillary is able to overcome this and other gender stereotypes. She turns much of the scholarship on voter perceptions of Democratic candidates, and furthermore female politicians, on its head.”

A late November YouGov survey conducted after the attacks in Paris but before San Bernardino found that Hillary Clinton stood apart from Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Marco Rubio and Carly Fiorina as the only candidate a majority of voters believe

is ready to be Commander in Chief. She is the only one about whom as many people express confidence in her ability to handle an international crisis as say they are uneasy.

...


According to the transcript, the 12 women and 12 men — a mix of Democrats, Republicans and independents — variously described their impression of Bush’s spine as made of “marshmallow,” “styrofoam,” “Jell-O,” “play dough,” “pillow,” “papier-mâché” and “chalk.”

In contrast, participants described Hillary Clinton’s backbone as made of “titanium,” “steel,” “ice” and “cement

...


“How many say Hillary Clinton could do the job?” Hart asked. “Eleven out of 12.”

In the women’s group, Bennett asked the question in negative terms: “Is there anybody who you do not feel comfortable that they could handle the enormity and the complexity of the job?” For Trump: seven raised their hands; for Bush: also seven; for Carson: 11. For Clinton: none.

Some of the comments made during the focus group sessions indicated that the Benghazi Committee created by House Republicans in May 2014 to damage Clinton’s presidential prospects had backfired. Referring in part to Clinton’s performance during an 11 hour interrogation by the committee, a participant identified as Thomas noted:

Her ability to walk through what she’s had thrown at her just in the last six months should give you an idea that the woman has definitely got some strength. She’s there. I don’t necessarily agree with where she’s coming from, but still, you cannot knock what that woman is like.

...

Alan, another participant, added:

I don’t necessarily agree with her positions, but she is definitely strong. For lack of a better term, she’s got some -----, you know. She stands up and stands firm.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/opinion/campaign-stops/hillary-clintons-toughness.html?_r=0

And I do apologize if you thought I was attacking you.

No problem, all is good.

I'm just passionate...Passion you can't buy.

[andrewv1]

68. I have no doubts

she would be a strong leader if she were elected, but what kind?

What I will go into outside her electability, is her Neocon leanings.

What concerns me more than hearing about her changing positions or her big-money backing, is her hawkish stance & with that said, I don't question that article in the least.
But, I also know that she has stated that she would bomb Iran and convinced Obama into funding & giving weapons to the rebels who would later become ISIS in overthrowing Qaddafi in Libya.

So, being strong like Cheney or Kissinger is not a good recipe for stopping World War III.

And just like a poll that came out today, she does worry me as much as Trump in that regard.

[riversedge]

61. Here...this might

help you. You seems so sad and disgruntled.

Tis the season to be jolly......

[Prixen]

73. Is being under 50% bad when your opponent can't even reach 35%?

Math says that 49% is more than any number in the 30's. Sanders supporters want to lower the bar to "If Clinton has less than 50% she loses" regardless of Sanders' improvement.

[The Dark Magician]

29. When Clinton drops to under 50%, it's over.

[Prixen]

56. Wrong. If Clinton drops to 49, and Sanders doesn't make it to 40%, it's over

You have to get more votes than your opponent.

[The Dark Magician]

80. Check the methodology.

[JaneyVee]

32. K AND R!

[Thinkingabout]

33. The most important polls will be the primary election, over 50% is looking really good.

She is working like a candidate who is not in the lead, she has a great team behind her.

[406-Boz]

38. Please let me know where and when to vote in the national primary

Thanks.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. What state do yo live in , bro?

I will try to find a poll from that state.

[406-Boz]

83. I'm in Montana

It would be interesting to see a poll from this state.

But I wasn't serious about the "national primary". It seemed like a good response to another national poll. I will be voting in the MT primary, that won't happen until spring, June I believe.