This message was self-deleted by its author

[KMOD]

This message was self-deleted by its author (KMOD) on Mon Oct 19, 2015, 09:08 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[cherokeeprogressive]

1. Post this after the primaries start and stop whistling past the graveyard.

It's hella boring.

[cherokeeprogressive]

10. This far out it's impossible to tell. I say start the debates early, and THEN make predictions.

[AgingAmerican]

149. Today is almost a year out

He is just officially announcing today. He is a threat to the right wing political establishment.

[CountAllVotes]

104. +1

n/t

[pa28]

17. Just let 'em whistle.

Enjoy the slow build up of panic between now and February.

[reddread]

55. if thats slow

the fear will be deafening soon.

[eloydude]

2. It's just getting started... those polls are still meaningless

but you must note that Obama did start at 28% when the primaries started, and Hillary was on her way to a coronation and I was an Edwards supporter.

I ended up supporting Obama over Hillary because she was being insulated. I fear she is going to repeat the same mistakes from 2008.

[Katashi_itto]

91. We just started and she is already down 33 points.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_WA_52115.pdf

[Katashi_itto]

150. Give it time

[Luminous Animal]

4. Poor poor Bernie Sanders.

[okasha]

5. Reality is not appreciated.

[reddread]

57. sure it is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community

[PowerToThePeople]

7. Here's a blast from the past.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/14/democrats.poll/

[Art_from_Ark]

9. Yeah, Bernie is no "moderate '80s Republican"

[Art_from_Ark]

15. I don't give a damn how Hillary is polling at this point in time

Bernie has just now officially launched his campaign. It is still way early.

Let Hillary and Bernie go head-to-head in debates, and see how they both do in Iowa and New Hampshire.

[Art_from_Ark]

20. The average voter still does not really know who Bernie is right now

Let them hear what he has to say, on a national stage, starting with Iowa and New Hampshire.

[Art_from_Ark]

24. He got 24% of *what* vote in Washington State?

What office was he running for in Washington State?

[Art_from_Ark]

42. Bernie has never run for elected office in Washington State.

You are just quoting current poll numbers, not election results. The primaries don't start until next year.

[Art_from_Ark]

60. You said he received 24% of the *vote*

Opinion polls are not "votes". They are merely gauges of public opinion at a certain point in time, which may or may not be accurate.

[TheNutcracker]

177. Public Policy Poll just had him at 24% last week.

[TM99]

31. Actually, you would be factually wrong.

When it comes to Democratic primaries and early polls, things are very exciting and unpredictable. The same can not be said for Republicans as typically the early poll leader does take the primary.

But Democrats? Nah, it is a lot more fun and crazy even.

There are quite a few years where early polling favorites lost to candidates that were barely known in the year preceding the election. One such example is Bill Clinton.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/a-brief-history-of-primary-polling-part-ii/?_r=0

Even as late as the end of 1991, Clinton was polling at 8% with only about 30% name recognition. And yet we know what eventually happened. He won the primary and then went on to beat a sitting President who was a war hero and who had just finished a successful war in Iraq.

Out of the 9 election cycles in that NY Times study, only twice did the early highest polling candidate win the primary - 1984 and 2000. And in both instances, they lost in the general to Reagan and close enough to GW Bush for it to be stolen in FL.

The statistics actually show that Hillary is in far greater trouble both in the primary and in the general than Sanders or the Republican. Right now Carson may be the highest polling GOP candidate. If this study holds true to form, the general may come down to Carson versus Sanders or Carson versus Clinton.

[TM99]

39. Given history, you are more likely to lose that bet

than am I betting against her.

What is his path?

Well, it has been one month since he announced. My guess is the next step will be his formal announcement party tomorrow in VT. Then on to the debates and campaigning in primary states.

[TM99]

47. I suspect you are jumping ahead to the general election.

Let's actually start with the debates and the primaries & caucuses.

[Agschmid]

143. I think so.

[leftofcool]

85. Yea, Carson is polling at a whopping 23%, so did Herman Cain

And by the way, Hillary beats all Republicans by double digits!

[TM99]

87. Look, you are not even reading information

that might challenge your perceptions.

Read the linked to article again.

Almost always the Republican early front runner becomes the nominee. There are so many so it is going to be a bit harder right now to completely predict.

Carson may have polled at 23% in whatever poll you are referencing, but he also just handily won the SLRC straw poll 3 days ago. So among Republicans he is an early front runner.

And remember that Poppy Bush was beating all Democrats this early on 1991 as well, and then he got beat by Bill Clinton who this early on was as low as Sanders is in the poll.

All right there in the linked to series in beautifully present statistical research.

[Agschmid]

142. LOL.

That war was okay...

just finished a successful war in Iraq

[TM99]

193. As far as American's electing

leaders, successfully winning a war is up there.

I was there. It was my youthful wake up call to the way of the Neo-cons and the reality of war.

I began a long journey after that of healing especially after loosing two of my best friends from college that year.

We may agree on that being a shitty war with trumped up reasons like baby's being thrown from incubators but to the people it was something else.

[Lizzie Poppet]

30. Bernie's not going to have the press in his pocket.

Let's face it: Obama's candidacy was massively supported in broad segments of the the media. Bernie will not have that advantage; this time, Hillary will.

[okasha]

48. It was also massively supported

by the Daley organization in Chicago. They were and are a politically powerful coalition with connections all across the country.

[Lizzie Poppet]

165. Excellent point.

Bernie has a massive uphill battle, no doubt. My biggest hope for his campaign is that it influences the final party platform and eventual nominee (which I think will be Hillary).

[cherokeeprogressive]

12. Wait til she has to face him on the debate stage.

Remember Al Gore's sigh? Gosh I hope she doesn't do anything like that.

[JDPriestly]

14. Nothing is certain. Democrats should not count on Hillary.

Bernie will make a great president.

She ran in 2008. Everyone thought she was a shoo-in. She made a mess of her candidacy.

Why should it be different this time?

Hillary gets good poll numbers because everyone thinks of her as "the" Democrat. The country wants a Democratic president.

Wait and see what happens in the primary and in the debates.

Bernie is steady. He is on the side of ordinary working people.

I went to a meeting this weekend, a retreat. I saw a number of my old friends. These are folks now in their 50s and 60s. (I am older.) Their lives were ruined by the 2008 bank crisis. Lost homes. Lost jobs. Lost businesses. And now, lost marriages in several cases. All of them blame themselves. I don't. I blame the banks.

The bankers have not been called to answer. They were bailed out. My friends made fewer mistakes than the bankers did. My friends were not bailed out.

There are millions of Americans like my friends. (I have been luckier than they so this post is not about me. It is about people I care about.)

Bernie has a message of hope for them. He believes in protecting Social Security and Medicare and creating jobs by repairing and rebuilding our infratstructure.

And, by the way, Bernie voted against war in Iraq, not once but twice. Bernie is clear in his opposition to the TPP and other similar trade agreements. Bernie supports single payer healthcare. Bernie supports a small tax per trade on certain Wall Street transactions. Bernie opposes the NSA collection of data on all Americans as it is being done as well as other violations of our privacy and civil rights. Bernie has strongly supported racial equality, gender equality and same sex marriage and human rights.

Bernie's views on the issues are my views.

Bernie's views on the issues are the views of a lot of Americans.

Hillary voted for the Iraq War Resolution. Where she stands on other issues we do not yet know?

She is supporting gay marriage and civil rights. She and Bill were in the White House as union membership remained low and our economy went into a boom that was destined to bust.

We need a president with better judgment that the Republicans and better judgment than the third-way Democrats like Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Maybe we Democrats will this once choose Sanders and set our country on a good path. Maybe not. But I hope we will.

We have nothing to gain by endorsing Hillary early in the campaign. She may or may not be the strongest candidate at this time. I don't think she is. There are a lot of problems with her life, her views and her candidacy.

[TheKentuckian]

184. Clinton being in the same place ideologically is a certain sign of snake oil sales being in effect.

[pipoman]

16. History....study it

The decision is around a long year from now... very rarely has the front runner a year out won the nomination..and many times there have been 50+% recoveries in a matter of days as will likely happen in the 2016 lead up....the campaign hasn't even begun ffs....is this your first election cycle?

[pipoman]

25. She's one scandal or stupid statement from insignificance

History isn't on her side....neither is the vast middle who are required for any candidate to win...

[juajen]

181. Really now!

We get a great candidate, one who is brilliant, one who knows most of the heads of state in the world, and has probably been entertained by most of them; and one who is experienced beyond belief, or imagination.

Yep, the perfect candidate, and good looking to boot! One with a wonderful smile and brilliance shining through her beautiful blue eyes that can fill with tears at a moments notice, for her compassion for all of the people in this world speaks volumes. She desperately wants to make a difference. In all my 74 years I have never seen anything like her.

I don't expect her to do everything I want; I don't expect her to mimic my fond beliefs. I do expect her to give her all for this country and to think carefully before stepping in poop laid out for her carefully by those who would destroy her, and who care only for their agenda. Go, Hillary, Go!

Now, let's tear her apart! We are our own worst enemy. Handed a pearl, we grind it to pieces. .

Too bad. she is perfectly capable of quickly gluing herself back together in better shape than ever. It is time for a female president. There candidate is laughable, but they do see the writing on the wall. Women have a very large voting block, and this time, we will use it. Nobody is perfect, but she is damn close.

I love Bernie, and, just like the wonderful Senator Warren, he is needed in the Senate.

We have a huge battle before us and do not need to lose our best senate warriors. Please get on board!

Don't you owe us something for the toil, love and financial support we have given male candidates for mine and others lifetimes, with barely any sincere thanks or payback!

Grumble, grumble, I can hear it already; thinly disguised misogyny. Yep, I said it, and I calls it like I sees it.

[pipoman]

186. one who has spent years

Sucking up to and doing exactly what she has been told to do by her corporate masters, voting for wars, advocating policy against the working people, not doing a single thing for the US unless they are 1%ers...a virtual guarantee of exactly more of the same nation destroying that has been going on for the last 5 or 6 presidents....the vast center will never vote for her and without them we will not have a Democrat in the presidency...No, she will not win the presidency...we need a candidate who will actually deliver change..

And if you want to insure she loses just keep it up with the misogyny dogshit...I suppose Elizabeth Warren isn't woman enough, eh? I will not vote for ANYONE because of their race, religion, or gender...only a complete idiot would...

[Scootaloo]

62. No, she's really not a strong candidate

The right absolutely hates her. they hate her more than they like their own candidates. Clinton will absolutely unify and energize Republican voters to march out and vote against her.

She's also not really popular with the left. She's pro-war, in bed with corporations, and has shown herself to be first in line to cut bad deals with bad people. So a notable bloc of democratic voters are going to sit it out. Right or wrong, it's going to happen. I think you and the other Clinton supporters know this, thus your constant threats, harassment, and bullying of progressives on DU.

And those vaunted "independents"? They're not going to go for Clinton. For starters, Independent voters tend to vote against the party of a current administration, out of a "time for change" belief. Further, Clinton is understood as a long-time "insider," another "more-of-the-same" candidate. it doesn't help that she'll be dragging another former president back to the White House with her - Independents are not likely to rush polls for another Clinton any more than they are for another Bush (and putting the two in the same race would likely get them to either sit at home or Nader the fuck out of their polling places.)

Clinton will lose the general. Not because she's a bad candidate, but because she's so polarizing it makes her a weak candidate. It's not hopeless - the Republican Clown Car doesn't actually have many strong contenders (despite what many Clinton fans on Du keep telling us, weirdly) so even with the polarizing problem, she could kick out a win.

But if you want a Democrat to be president, she's not the candidate.

[Scootaloo]

69. But it's what will most likely happen.

We've got a year and a half until the general election KMOD. Candidates are still declaring. If you think a poll you dig up today is a sure-fire view of the results on election day, well, that's just not very smart.

[Art_from_Ark]

76. Polls in Arkansas early last year showed Mark Pryor easily defeating Tom Cotton

by double digits. And yet when the actual votes were counted, Cotton had won by an embarrassingly wide 22%

[jeff47]

163. Same as Bill Clinton and Obama.

Both were polling in single-digits around a year out. Both won.

You thinking polls this early are accurate predictors of the election does not speak well for your political analysis. If 2008's early polls were accurate, Giuliani would have narrowly beaten Clinton in 2008. He didn't even make it to the primaries, and she lost the primaries.

Polls tell you where things stand now. Where things stand now is nothing like where things will be standing on election day. Polls in Iowa and NH will start being vaguely accurate in late December. National polls and Republican-vs-Democrat polls will not be vaguely accurate until late September 2016.

Vaguely-accurate meaning providing a clue as to who is "ahead" and who is "behind". They won't be close to the primary/caucus/election results until around a month before. And even then there's lots of room for an "October Surprise"-style event.

The media has lots of "dead air" to fill, so they spend a lot of time talking about polls. That doesn't mean polls are accurate, it means they are good for filling "dead air".

[still_one]

71. Hyperbolic BS. Whoever the Democratic nominee is, the republicans will go against them in force.

You say they hate Hillary, and that makes her polarizing, which is right among republicans, but they hate Bernie just as much because he calls himself a Socialist Democrat. In fact in the general election I doubt very much Bernie could win any red state no matter how attractive his message is. The American people have demonstrated they are not the wisest or most thoughtful

Whoever the nominee is, it will NOT be an easy path, and I wouldn't count on the independents doing one thing or another. Wisconsin which was more blue elected Walker three times, and Feingold lost his seat. Iowa replace a Democratic Senator with Joni Ernst, so the fact remains that no one knows what the independents are going to do

[Scootaloo]

72. Thank you for the insult, but it doesn't make your argument any stronger.

it's a combination of all three groups.

Yes, the republicans will come at anyone on the democratic ticket. That misses the point. The Clintons are high-octane hate fuel for the right, and have been for twenty years. There are literally people who have been raised from birth to hate Bill and Hillary with very ounce of spleen they can muster. Personally, not simply as a consequence of being liberals or democrats.

[still_one]

73. That wasn't meant as an insult, and it was definitely not meant to be personal, but calling the

rhetoric as I saw it. It was an opinion.

There is so much hyperbolic BS flowing through most of the threads supporting one candidate or another, based on a person's particular bias, at least that is how I have been seeing DU lately.

My point being is that the republicans today actually view Democrats as anti-American, and have expressed that view on many occasions, not only when bush was president, but also during Obama's term, and it has actually become worse.

So to your argument, I see no difference between the "Clinton" hatred, which most certainly exists, and the "socialist" label hatred which definitely exists in those circles. A perfect example is what will occur if the SC rules against Federal subsidies for the ACA. Millions of people will lose their insurance in the 30 some states whose republican governors refused to implement exchange programs. They have so much partisan HATE, that they are actually saying healthcare should be a state issue, and they don't care about the health and welfare of the people in their state. Yet, those same people who are utilizing that, continue to vote for the same republicans time and again, because they have been told that "Obamacare" is "socialism", "worse than slavery", "worse than communism", etc., even though these same people collect their social security and medicare they vote against it, and of course in their ignorance do not realize that the ACA is insurance reform and not socialism.

My argument is that socialism is as hateful of a word to most republicans today as the Clinton or Sanders are

and yes I do understand you point, we just don't agree on that, though I do believe the polls are not particularly accurate at the moment, and won't have any sort of validity, until the campaigns and debates start in full force

[jeff47]

166. Republicans will "go against them", but that won't motivate the base as well

as Clinton Derangement does.

[still_one]

169. I disagree. The republican party today views all Democrats as anti-American. Their base is the

rabid fundamentalist right

[jeff47]

173. They view all Democrats as anti-American, but Clinton is Satan incarnate to them.

There's degrees of hatred. All Democrats get about an "8". Clinton cranks the hatred all the way to 11. They hate her even more than they hate Obama.

The Republicans have nothing but marginal candidates because of the massive hill they have to climb in 2016. The Democratic candidate will win 234 electoral votes from the safely "blue" states. The Republican will only win 134 electoral votes from the safely "red" states.

That means the Democratic candidate only needs 1 big swing state. Or 2 smaller swing states. The Republican needs all 11 swing states, and has to turn one blue state. That's damn near impossible.

Unless the Republicans can really rile up their base, while simultaneously turning off Democratic activists. Something Clinton fits very nicely. Now Republicans just need to get someone through their primary who does not sound completely insane.

[eloydude]

189. She is the weakest candidate

Loves the 1% and only gives lip servicd to the 99%. Foreign policy too hawkish. Economic policy too far to the right. Supported the Iraq War which caused sectarian violence. Keystone supporter. TPP waffler but leans to pro.

Yeah, Hilary is the "strongest" candidate. Try weak. Very weak.

[muriel_volestrangler]

120. What were those many 50+% recoveries in a matter of days?

[Bonobo]

22. Whatever the case may be, this is no argument for not supporting him in the Primaries.

Overcoming those odds can only be accomplished by voting for him.

Your question is most likely NOT an "honest one" but rather an ill-disguised and passive aggressive attempt to claim that he is not viable in the GE.

As to this question you ask: "And why should it? HRC is a wonderful candidate, and a wonderful advocate for our democratic beliefs, and a highly respected and admired democratic candidate. Her polling is currently phenomenal. "

The answer is precisely that many of us do NOT feel she is a wonderful advocate for democratic beliefs nor that she is a highly respected and admired figure wrt the general election.

[Bonobo]

28. The vast majority here on DU are with me. The polls here show that.

Now go ahead and say, "Yeah, but DU is not the real world."

I know it's coming, but I always feel it's an oversimplification.

DU is a very good reflection of Democratic hopes and ideals.

[okasha]

35. Nor I.

[Tarheel_Dem]

74. "DU is a very good reflection of Democratic hopes and ideals." Really?

[Bonobo]

75. Yes, hopes and ideals. Here's a great link for you.

http://www.dictionary.com

[Tarheel_Dem]

78. Well alrighty then. I'm taking my "ideals" to bed, and "hoping" I can fall asleep.

G'Night.

[Scootaloo]

43. A majority of Americans supported the Iraq War too.

Including your candidate.

bandwagoning isn't a good way to make an argument.

[workinclasszero]

32. I have as good a chance as Bernie of getting the nomination

But DU is no longer a reality based democratic discussion board, haven't you noticed? LOL

This is the only place in the world where an unknown 70 plus year old wild hair self described socialist independent gun lover from a small eastern state is going to suddenly take the nomination away from the most popular and well known democratic woman in decades.

Bernie seems to be a good guy mostly, except when he's protecting assault rifle manufacturers against massacre victims families, but his followers here are a real piece of work.

[Scootaloo]

40. I remember how Clinton supporters insisted Barack Hussein Obama had no chance, too

[TM99]

41. Which reality based world are we talking?

The one backed up by statistical research?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6728328

Or the one in all of the Clinton follower's heads?

[TM99]

50. I am not trying to be mean when I say this

but I really don't think you really want to see any path where Sanders will win.

A path is something you see after it is made. A plan is what he is implementing now. It is based on his record, his principles, and his policy stances. We will see how that plays with the American people as the campaign fully gets under way. Hell the finalized debate schedule is not even at hand, and all you keep asking is 'What's his path?'

[TM99]

82. So did Carter.

So did Bill Clinton.

Hillary Clinton has already failed to win the Dem nominee once. Very few get another chance. I expect her to implode once she has actually has to face challengers in debates like O'Malley and Sanders.

We will see.

[davidpdx]

90. And Barack Obama who won the nomination against.............

[reddread]

59. this one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community

[Scootaloo]

38. Yes, we've been hearing about it since at least 2009

We'll see how it turns out once the actual campaigning gets underway.

[Binkie The Clown]

45. Bernie can't win the primary, but I support him anyway.

Those who think he can win are like those Republicans who believed their own propaganda about Mitt Romney and thought he would win the presidency in a landslide. One must always be careful to keep wishful thinking out of objective analysis. I wish Bernie could win the primary and the general, but in reality, it's not going to happen. That makes me sad, but that's reality folks.

Make no mistake about it, I would LOVE to be proven wrong. I hope I am proven wrong. I'm going to support Bernie with the fervent wish that I will be proven wrong. But (reality check) I'm going to be proven right, and that's just the way it is. (And I hope I'm wrong about that too, but if wishes were wings, frogs wouldn't bump their ass on the ground every time they jumped.)

[Aerows]

52. You can't make a shark

into a goldfish. That's going to be Hillary's biggest obstacle - likeability.

[Aerows]

68. It's worth asking

Why did she lose the first time?

She's an absolutely brilliant person. No one could say with a straight face that she isn't savvy, intelligent and formidable.

I think the main issue is that she gives off a vibe that she is entitled to be the first female President. I'd carry a bucket of gasoline through hell to get Elizabeth Warren elected, but so far, she isn't willing to run. She has a degree of humility, as does Bernie Sanders.

Hillary Clinton is unabashedly her own biggest fan, which is a bit ... off-putting.

[Aerows]

167. It's not

my opinion that she lost in 2008 - that's a fact.

[hack89]

83. Can't make a guppy into a whale either. Nt

[okasha]

175. Would you rather have a goldfish

or a shark dealing with the Republicans?

Pur in?

China, which is eating our lunch economically.?

On an ocean full of sharks, a goldfish wouldn't last long. Give me the shark any day.Cuddliness is not a desirable trait in a President.

[AgingAmerican]

54. Why are you so worried?

If he isn't a threat?

How long til the first primary, 9 months?

[Scootaloo]

66. No, we just have to keep explainig things like "primaries" and "campaigning" to you

it doesn't mean we think Bernie has already won, it just means we're trying to get it through your heads that there is more than one contender in the Democratic primary.

[leftofcool]

101. There will be another Dem in a couple of days.

O"Malley will be a great candidate for the primary.

[Scootaloo]

194. No, that's HCG echo-chamber claptrap

You guys need to pop a hatch and let in some fresh air or something, your eyes are starting to bug.

No Sanders supporter here thinks he's "already won." Or even that he's going to have smooth sailing to victory. It's gonna be a slog.

[AgingAmerican]

126. People like him

Democracy is a process. You guys seem threatened by it.

[AgingAmerican]

145. It's the endless hand wringing

...like this OP.

[WillyT]

61. Because... When HIS Lips Move... HE Does Not Lie... Unlike Most Politicians...

[zappaman]

65. Plenty of time to catch up.

Can't rule anything out this early.

[AzDar]

67. Bernie!!

That is all.

[Ken Burch]

70. Eugene McCarthy was massively behind LBJ even one month before the primaries.

Things can change.

Bernie's campaign has passion and genuine ideals behind it. HRC's campaign is highly-funded but cynical, and at this pooint its a passion-free zone. Nobody out there thinks electing her will do anything more than mundanely keep things more or less te same-which isn't anything, really.

[merrily]

77. Bernie supporters certainly doo appreciate the concern of Hillary supporters, yet are puzzled by it.

If he has no chance of winning, why do all even bother about him or his supporters?

[Sherman A1]

79. Okay

is the election today? As was once said 24 hours is an eternity in politics. None of us know what tomorrow will bring and frankly I prefer to have the candidates both Democrat and Republican well vetted and issues well discussed prior to making a choice in 2016.

[Sherman A1]

190. Everyone is entitled to their opinions

and most of what is posted here is simply just that... opinion. Time will tell us who the nominee will be and I am in hopes that the discussion of the issues between the candidates is vigorous and enlightening. As to the thoughts of those who post here, I too hope they are enlightening, however none here are the candidates themselves and hence what they post is simply their viewpoint on what the candidates have stated or what they believe that to be. While Bernie Sanders is my preferred candidate, I have not noted any posts indicating that HRC has no chance, but if you say they are there, I have no reason to doubt you. I simply see no particular reason to concern myself with the conjecture of others as we will know who it is in time to cast our ballot in November of 2016.

[quaker bill]

80. Don't worry

Hilllary needs other candidates to debate. Otherwise why have debates? If we do not have debates, the Republican clown car gets all the air time.

Relax, if Hillary is all that, then the other candidates are no threat, and she gets to do warm ups with a friendly crowd.

[lamp_shade]

81. I'm baffled too. Reminds me of the hundreds of DUers who once rallied around Kucinich.

[Marrah_G]

154. Baffled by people who support someone who closely mirrors their values?

I am not sure why that would baffle you. This is a very left leaning board.

[liberal N proud]

84. :

[leftofcool]

86. Bernie will never beat her in the primary!

[99Forever]

88. Because...

... Senator Sanders is everything Hillary Goldman Sachs MIC Clinton is not.

Honest, unassuming, truly interested in justice, truly interested in bettering the lives of working Americans, not a chickenhawk consistently beating the war drum as the solution to most international problems, and better on virtually every social issue.

[hootinholler]

89. What polls?

It's traditional around here to provide reference links.

This poll shows her lead is down to 33 points.

Where are your numbers from?

[TM99]

93. Thanks for that.

What I also find interesting is that in every match up against a potential GOP challenger Clinton will lose if the unsure swing GOP and she loses even 1% of her polled lead.

This is hardly spectacular for Clinton.

[hootinholler]

152. No link?

Where are your numbers from?

[Sancho]

92. Let's assume that Bernie or Webb or Warren or O'Malley have a great message...

the VAST majority of voters don't watch debates! The majority of voters in purple states that count in the electoral college (Florida, Ohio, etc.) are independent, fairly clueless, and identify with some peer group.

Any candidate will face a BILLION dollar advertisement campaign. They will need dollars, a professional organization, and the ability to respond quickly to crazy accusations. Lawyers will have to deal with registration and voting machine confrontations.

A grassroots organization is good for getting out the vote, but it has to be backed up with dollars and experts. You have to have both.

Campaigns have to put media together in multiple languages, fly in professionals to deal with crises, and put together legal challenges to abuses. In our election for governor, Rick Scott spent 100 million. Every second of TV, mailbox, and phone was bombarded with ads - including complete falsehoods. Independents here know Hillary, so they filter those things and stick to issues they care about - but they don't really know most other candidates.

How would Bernie or others do that on a national scale? I posted a link to a famous article (Eelworms, Bullet Holes, and Geraldine Ferraro: Some Problems with Statistical Adjustment and Some Solutions) with a parallel. Ferraro was CONVINCED she would win because of the message and exciting rallies, but she wasn't really paying attention to the majority of voters and their issues.

Lots of enthusiasm in a small group doesn't include the "non ignorable non respondent" - the people who are not active or informed, but will vote in a Presidential election. They are independent, don't follow politics, and likely vote on a single issue, personality, or group affiliation. It's technical, but the idea is that it's easy to misinterpreted excitement with reality:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1164602?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

It's simply not true to assume a message will translate into votes without a way to get the message out there.
Hot issues would include women's rights, immigration, or minimum wage. For example, many in Florida don't know or care about Wall Street or Iraq as voting issues (really!). "Purple" voters are not as upset over TPP or Iraq as DU. When I ask college students, they often confuse Bernie Sanders with Bernard Madoff!! The only "Bernie" they know is a crook! They like the idea of international trade, and "support the troops" automatically. They know the 911 terrorist learned to fly in Florida. People have been arguing about the environment for decades, but never elected anyone on that issue alone. In fact, it likely cost the Democrats more elections that helped. It's an issue, but not a winner for most voters.

Which candidates have the organization, money, and personal appeal so they could possibly win?? Which ones could fight a court challenge (like we seem to have in Florida every election)? I will vote for the Democratic candidate, but Hillary has a big challenge to win as it is. I don't see the other potential candidates making inroads into the mainstream or organized yet, but we will see what happens.

[deutsey]

98. I see it this way

Did Eugene Debbs or other socialists in the early 20th century have smashing electoral victories? Some won state and local elections, a few even went to Congress, but they didn't win the White House or large majorities. They gave wealthy elites a bit of a scare before the red scare after WWI, but they were electorally marginalized with the post-war crackdown.

However, they had also helped to circulate ideas or plant seeds (to be poetic) that would later take root during the Depression and the popular agitation that resulted in the New Deal.

The New Deal is dead and all we've had until recently is tired old Reaganism and its sour-faced little grandchild austerity with no viable competing economic approach counterbalancing them. Even quite a few Democrats say they revere Reagan and push various forms of austerity.

I want Bernie and others (like Kshama Sawant) to push an alternative view to all of that. I'm glad Kshama won her election (I honestly wasn't expecting her to do so) and I support Bernie's candidacy and hope he wins. Frankly, I see that as a long shot and I expect Hillary to be the nominee. She'll have my lukewarm support and I'll vote for her, but even if Bernie doesn't make it, I am looking forward to him presenting an alternative to the standard spectrum of corporatism we usually get.

[Sancho]

106. I agree that different candidates are beneficial to changing the narrative.

Nader likely cost the Democrats some elections, but there's no question that he brought a lot of attention to issues that ultimately gained traction.

In my early days, we had a few people (like Kerry) who spoke openly against the Vietnam war and eventually it made a difference.

Heck, in the 1960's I remember family debates about "socialized medicine" and the eventual move to what is essentially a single-payer model. So in general, I agree with good candidates raising issues to move the target, even if they don't win.

I've listened to lunch with Bernie on Thom Hartman for a long time. He articulates some positions well. States like Washington and Vermont are very, very different than Texas and Florida, so a socialist view is harder to promote. We have bike trails, but still can't get voters to pay for public transportation for example. The Kshama campaign would be quite difficult here, for example. If anything, Texas, Florida, and much of the South are focused on big corporations as a good thing. I hear very few friends and neighbors complain about Wall Street or TPP, but immigration and women's rights appear to be critical to many people.

For the South, immigration is a social justice issue - interacting with education, jobs, health care, business, and family. About 25% of Florida were born out of the US (and that's just reported!). Many immigrants think of the US government as a big bully in their home county (aligned with oppressive regimes), so they see trade agreements as a way to correct the manipulations of the Americans and bring prosperity to the third world. They want a path to citizenship as the prime issue, and many have relatives who are legal voters. Honestly, working for Walmart or cleaning hotels or agriculture jobs are good jobs for many immigrants from their view - so attacking corporate capitalism doesn't win over many immigrant voters here.

Some here think of "socialism" as what they experienced in South America, Cuba, Poland (and other parts of Eastern Europe), N. Korea, and Cambodia. They came to the US from "socialist/communist" countries. Without careful definition, a candidate who is labelled "socialist" here has a tough PR fight. Objectively, people have to see elections from the viewpoint of voters and not just through our own experience.

[deutsey]

115. True, but I also think of what Naomi Klein observed re: Shock Doctrine

When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. When you have stuff lying around ready to throw in then you can make the changes. Friedman had his ideas of the Shock Doctrine laying around. What are the ideas that progressives and liberals have lying around? What are the ideas that people who believe in democracy and equal justice for all - a healthy environment - What laying around ideas do they have? Because we should have them.

Read more: http://chomsky-must-read.blogspot.com/2008/10/naomi-klein-interview-26-oct-2008.html#ixzz3bFknhurm

Seeing elections from the viewpoint of voters who are only aware of centrist, center-right and right-wing solutions makes me very pessimistic about our future.

[Sancho]

132. I don't think immigrants see a "centrist" view...

they see social justice is often the freedom to have rights: generally the economic right to work and right to citizenship. This is similar to our founding rights.

Concerns about unfair capitalism are prevalent with baby boomers, but don't resonate with people escaping old style communism or dictatorships. In fact, some probably come to the US from oppression where the leadership was supported by US capitalism.

The last economic crisis was too complicated to be "lying around". Not being able to vote, having relatives deported, or being harassed by police is "lying around". Folks saw the child Gonzalez forced out of the US crying at gunpoint, so those people would not vote for Gore because of his comments (and may have cost Gore the election). Frankly, immigrants are pretty positive about the Clinton Foundation (along with Carter and Gates), not because they care about political parties, but they see an effort to help the third world.

The same thing with women. My sister is a SC housewife in a conservative home with one kid in military school and another in the Navy. She still thinks it's a slap in the face to pass laws about women's health (she's a nurse) or that women have less pay than men. She might vote for Hillary only because of the issue of women's rights. She thinks the ERA should be ratified, and that women should have an equal right to education and job advancement. Women's rights is "lying around".

That's why I see major issues "lying around" as immigration and women's rights. Those issues are core values because they are basic human values of fairness to everyone.

Even though I think that bank regulation, education, the environment, and health care are important - none of those are front line issues for many people that are strong enough to carry an election. The environment is gaining momentum as it impacts people directly.

[deutsey]

140. It's all tangled together, imo

If we don't address issues in their totality as our opponents do, we'll just keep running around in circles while they remain in power.

[jeff47]

170. College students also confused Obama with bin Laden this far out.

At this point, anyone other than Clinton in the Democratic primary is more-or-less unknown. As a result, we really can't predict the outcome. Far too often, the unknown go on to win handily.

We can make some predictions based on Clinton, in that she actually has a national track record. She won't win NC in the general election. Anti-Clinton sentiment in the neon-red rural areas will drive massive turnout, and her uninspiring "more of the same" economics won't drive urban turnout enough to counter that.

(Subject to change in the next year-and-a-half. She could do something to massively excite the "blue" areas of the state, or the Republican could really piss off the rural areas. Both are unlikely, due to the very large swing that will be required.)

So that means my vote isn't going to have an effect in the general election if Clinton is the Democratic nominee.

But fortunately for Clinton, she doesn't need NC to win the general. She needs Virginia. That's it. VA and she's over 270. OH alone and she's over 270. There's a whole lot of ways the Democratic candidate can get over 270. There's very few ways the Republican can get to 270 - He will need to win all of the "purple" states, and turn one "blue" state.

As a result, 2016 for us isn't really about the general - there's no way the Republican can win, there are only ways the Democrat can lose. That should adjust our calculus some. We should be moving away from "how can we win this?" to "how do we not lose this?".

[Sancho]

176. For what it's worth, my brother and sister-in-law are registered repubs in NC.

I talked to them last night and they would consider Hillary. They are in rural NC.

That's mostly on the issues of immigration (he thinks it's necessary for rural farmers) and women's rights (my sister-in-law hates "health" laws). They are doing well economically (traditional retirement accounts) and are happy with Wall Street. Both would be against things like the Robin Hood tax. Even so, NC would not be the most likely Democratic win. Democrats in NC seem to have had some good movement with the "Monday" meetings and registering college students lately.
It depends, of course, on who the GOP candidate is...but my relatives won't vote for someone too extreme and the GOP has some real nuts. They are getting fed up with the Tea Party going too far in the state legislature.

Here in Florida, we were bombarded with ads, mailing, and phone calls that were literally falsehoods during the last mid-term election. Bernie would have to counter that with an expensive campaign. In fact, after the Rick Scott mess, I can see that enough money might win ANY election with the current system. Everyone hated Scott in Florida - even the GOP had him polling badly. They spent 100 million rehabilitating him with old folks, college students, independents, etc. Commercials with his wife and Scott walking on the beach, his late mother's videos, promises to fund education - it was sickening. And meanwhile they posted ad after ad about Charlie Crist going back to his elementary days with all the dirt you can imagine. All it took was a low turnout by hispanics (<30%) and Florida was lost. Obama's delay on immigration killed us in Florida.

Honestly though. Only those really in touch with politics in Florida have heard of Sanders. Everyone knows Hillary, and the general opinion is positive in parking lot conversations. Florida will be up for grabs again in 2016 - it will be close if Jeb or Rubio are the nominee.

[jeff47]

182. My point is Bernie (or Clinton) doesn't have to counter that in FL.

Bernie doesn't need FL to win the general. Bernie needs VA. Or OH. Or CO + IA. All three of those options are easier and cheaper than FL, and any of the three get him over 270.

When we're talking about the House and Senate, we need to broaden our map. When we're talking about the Presidency, we don't. We already have the broad map.

[Gothmog]

94. Those are impressive polling numbers for HRC

[JHB]

95. So let him lose in the primaries.

How hard is that?

[MoonRiver]

100. Apparently not too hard!

[Exilednight]

96. Any position poll you look at is completely meaningless. Most polls

Are showing candidates (Elizabeth Warren, anyone?) who aren't running, and not including candidates who are running.

Anyone who has been involved in a national campaign will tell you that position polls at this early stage have no basis in reality, nor do approval polls - unless you start to slide. (then watch how fast your candidate begins to develop ulcers)

Polls to pay attention to: issue polls. Will it be the economy that drives this election? Foreign policy? Education, healthcare, gay rights?

Most campaigns will start putting weight into polls just before the first debate.

But here is what to really remember, it's a state by state race. Your candidate can be 60 points ahead nationally, but still lose the delegates.

[MohRokTah]

97. Bernie Sanders has no clear path to victory and will never be president.

Bookmark this post, because it is 100% fact.

[kenfrequed]

99. Eh...

If this is just another polls based argument then I'm not as interested. New York Times primary field poll from January to June of 1991 had Bill Clinton at 1.7% on average. Sure there was a much larger field of candidates but he was extremely low and he still managed to win the nomination and two elections.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/a-brief-history-of-primary-polling-part-ii/?_r=0

Give it some time and look at the candidates on the issues before you start making up your mind. It would be better to choose who would be the best on that score than who has the biggest warchest or name familiarity.

[B Calm]

102. The only hope of Bernie is to steer Hillary leftward!

[Marrah_G]

155. Which is meaningless beyond the elections.

[DCBob]

103. I think his only hope is for some sensational scandal to emerge..

like some torrid lesbian love affair with a former staffer while Hillary was at the State Dept.

[LWolf]

105. She's down 33 points already, and

today is the formal kick-off for his campaign.

We've got a year until my primary; 8 months before the first.

I think poll numbers will change.

Of course, I don't choose a candidate based on poll numbers, anyway.

I choose a candidate based on issues, and he's better on every single one.

[Renew Deal]

107. Poll numbers are only one indicator.

A better question is asking which states he is going to win.

[peacebird]

108. She was up this far at this point in her last Pres campaign also..... Just saying....

[hack89]

109. And the gap between her and Obama? nt

[peacebird]

112. Last Thursday someone posted here that her gap at same time was 27 vs 24 for Bernie & Obama

So, pretty close to same situation.

[hack89]

114. So the gap between Obama and HRC was 27 points

the OP is saying Bernie trails HRC by 50 points. So Bernie has a much bigger hole to dig out of. With no national organization and no money. Lets not forget that Obama stood up his campaign organization in January of 2007 and raised over a $100 million in 2007 alone - he had the resources to close the gap. His name recognition was much higher than Bernie's is.

[peacebird]

116. I appreciate your concern, but Bernie is doing just fine!

Don't underestimate Bernie.

[hack89]

119. But he is not.

I wager he won't even win his own state primary.

[peacebird]

172. As stated before, if HRC's supporters weren't so worried about Bernie we wouldn't have so many of

them posting daily that Bernie doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell!

Cheers!

[hack89]

174. It is not worry - perplexed is a more apt term.

The point you refuse to accept is that support for Bernie on DU is not reflected in the real world.

[peacebird]

178. Twitter, reddit, facebook, and his campaign earned more $$$ than any R in first 24 hours.

But hey, if it helps you to cope, be perplexed!

[hack89]

180. So?

it is not the first 24 hours that matter but the thousands that follow. President Obama raised over $100 million in 2007 - then in 2008 he got really serious about raising money.

[muriel_volestrangler]

122. No, the gap between her and Obama was about 15%; it's 50% between her and Bernie

May 4–6, 2007 Hillary Clinton 45%, Barack Obama 27%
May 4–6, 2007 Hillary Clinton 38%, Barack Obama 23%
May 4–6, 2007 Hillary Clinton 38%, Barack Obama 24%
May 7–10, 2007 Hillary Clinton 35%, Barack Obama 33%
May 10–13, 2007 Hillary Clinton 42%, Barack Obama 28%
May 10–13, 2007 Hillary Clinton 35%, Barack Obama 26%
May 11–13, 2007 Hillary Clinton 35%, Barack Obama 24%
May 14–17, 2007 Hillary Clinton 35%, Barack Obama 25%
May 16–20, 2007 Hillary Clinton 31%, Barack Obama 21%
May 17–20, 2007 Hillary Clinton 39%, Barack Obama 24%
May 21–23, 2007 Hillary Clinton 35%, Barack Obama 26%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_2008_presidential_candidates

[Renew Deal]

136. That's not true

ABC News/Washington Post Poll

May 29 – June 1, 2007

Hillary Clinton 35%, Barack Obama 23%, Al Gore 17%, John Edwards 8%, Joe Biden 2%, Bill Richardson 2%, Chris Dodd 1%, Dennis Kucinich 1%

[mythology]

110. I don't know if it will be enough

But he should focus on getting traction in Iowa and trying to close the gap there and focusing less on New Hampshire. Yes New Hampshire is next to Vermont, But he needs to show viability as soon as possible.

He doesn't necessarily need to show he can win nationally, but he does need to show he can win one of the first states and Iowa is his best shot I think.

To win there he needs a strong ground game to build word of mouth support and he needs some sort of innovative edge like Obama had with technology advantage over Clinton and Edwards.

Do I think he's likely to do so? No. But I think it's better to have competition in the primary and thus far he's it.

[aikoaiko]

111. I don't know, but I'm willing to give him a chance to show us.

[beaglelover]

113. Yep, reality sucks sometimes and then you grow up. Bernie cannot win the general

and has 0% chance of being the D nominee for POTUS.

[peacebird]

118. If Hillary supporters were not worried about Bernie then I doubt we would have posts every day

from them explaining to the rest of us that he doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell......

[Agschmid]

117. A whole lot of people took the bait here huh?

C'mon guys don't fall for it. It's a primary, we've got time, and I am certainly going to try.

Surprised you got so many "bites"... with this chum.

[Avalux]

121. Groupthink is a dangerous thing. It's May 2015......

ANYTHING is possible if enough people stop believing the meme you're trying to spread here - that Bernie cannot possibly win the nomination.

You've been told that Clinton is inevitable and you believe it, so do a lot of others. But if people start thinking for themselves, anything can happen.

[OilemFirchen]

134. I'm intrigued that, as of yet, no one has attempted to answer your question.

Actually, I'm not.

But here's the Primary schedule for 2016:

http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-presidential-primary-schedule-calendar/

Which states does Sanders take through Super Tuesday? There are only 13, so it shouldn't be all that difficult to prognosticate.

[L0oniX]

128. Jeeze ...another poll pissing contest.

How's that Hillary Iraq vote working out for ya?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

137. Laugh.

He started out at 1% in the polls. Then he went to 3%, then 6%, then 13%, then 24% most recently. And he hasn't even kicked off his campaign yet.

How does he make up his polling deficit? By getting up to the 99% name recognition HRC has. And by continuing his momentum. As we've seen even here on DU, there are plenty of people who claim they would vote for him, but don't think enough other people would. The more other people folks see willing to vote for him, the more willing those people are going to be to actually do so.

So he campaigns, and he tells people what he believes, and his polls keep rising. And he passes HRC. Why? Because he's even more of a 'wonderful candidate' than she is.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

153. Name recognition is shorthand, because it basically says

in a poll comparing person x and person y, if one of them is a known name and another an unknown, chances are people will choose to vote for the known rather than the unknown.

Once name recognition is in the mix, people choose based on what they actually know about those people, which is what campaigning is about.

So 58% of Washington State knew Bernie's name, but not necessarily what he stands for or believes. So name recognition is the first step, but if you reread my comment, you'll note that campaigning is the next part.

[-none]

138. The proper idea about civic responsibility is to vote for those candidates that most closely

espouse your own philosophy and ideas. To vote for someone just because you think they might/will win is irresponsible.
Too many people are voting for certain candidates only because they think those candidates will win. As a result our once great country is sliding down the chute into 3rd worldism.
More people need to start voting their self interest and stop thinking of politics as some kind of a sports game, of no real consequence to their lives. Politics has some very real consequences for millions of people, as those who have been paying attention well know.

[truebluegreen]

141. Your concern for Bernie is noted.

[WilliamPitt]

146. Hm. Let's see.

May June July August September October November December January February March April May June July August September October first Tuesday in November

...is the standing election season as of now.

Nervous?

You should be.

[nadinbrzezinski]

162. I will qualify this

I am not so sure Bernie will win the nomination. Conventional wisdom tells me so. But history also tells me that you will see ANOTHER candidate, maybe not named yet, win the nomination.

Early leads by Democrats rarely translates in a win.

Somebody already showed you the NYT study.

That said, and I know this is not what you want to hear, but we are in one of those moments in US History when conventional wisdom might not work, well conventionally.

[Marrah_G]

151. The race has barely begun

I think he has a chance because people are ready to see some big change, especially about income inequality and college education.

Also, he is pretty darn popular on social media, which should not be discounted.

[Marrah_G]

160. I don't believe anyone is or should be, inevitable.

[nadinbrzezinski]

158. My calendar reads May 26, 2015

If this was oh I don't know two weeks before the NJ primary...

Walks away shaking heard... what else can one do?

[CanonRay]

161. At least he's out beating the right drum

talking truth to power and his message is getting out. That's good enough for me right now. Hopefully, he makes HRC do a little of the same.

[Man from Pickens]

164. It may not be Sanders

However, I have a high degree of confidence that this party does not want to nominate Hillary Clinton and that its voters will flock in great numbers to whoever looks like they have the best shot at beating her for the nomination. Of the half-dozen individuals currently sporting a non-zero shot of being the nominee, HRC is the least appealing of all by a wide margin. An election about issues rather than her history and entitled, aristocratic behavior is what is strongly preferred by, I believe, a strong majority of voters.

[Myrina]

168. And on Sunday, Juan Montoya started the Indy 500 in 30th place.

... but he won. By your logic he should just have given up because he started from behind.

Getting really tired of the brow-beating from the "Hillary is inevitable because we said so" crowd.
The first primary hasn't even been held yet. And some of us don't happen to think she's " a wonderful candidate, and a wonderful advocate for our democratic beliefs ..."

Oh, and polls? Well you know what they say ...

[brooklynite]

187. Of course, nobody has said Bernie Sanders SHOULDN'T run if he wants

(but you knew that, didn't you?)

The flaw in your analogy is that the world wouldn't be better or worse off if Juan Montoya had lost the race. The stakes in the Presidential election are a little more significant.

[Jim Lane]

171. Sanders is ahead of where McGovern was at this point in the cycle.

When George McGovern announced his candidacy in 1971, no one gave him much chance of winning the nomination.

And, yes, I know he lost the general election -- partly because of dirty tricks but mostly because he had no money. Since then we've instituted public financing. Any Democratic nominee will have the funding to be competitive. The Republicans' rich donors can outspend us but they'll hit a point of diminishing returns.

[Thinkingabout]

179. It may be Sanders is at his max polling.

[polichick]

183. That's because tptb have already...

chosen their tool.

Who knows - maybe the people will actually save themselves! In that case, Bernie will be ready to represent us.

[Cali_Democrat]

185. Whoever gets the most delegates

The Democratic primary voters will decide.

[Rex]

188. Yes and HRC was the front-runner in 2008

and was expected to clinch the nomination so your point is really moot. You can try and try and try for months and months, but your point won't mean anything because of one Barack Obama and 2008.

Some were convinced HRC was a clear shoe in for the nomination and yet could not catch up with the POTUS. You know, the guy that actually won his two elections! Unlike that last dude that had to cheat.

Obama has large odds to overcome and he did.

Some people have good memories.

Do the math.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

191. While what you say is true about 2008, this election is not likely to be like 2008

..and if it is (e.g. we're back into high-casualty war, or the economy is in full meltdown), then neither Bernie nor Hillary will win; we will be welcoming President Ted Cruz, President Rand Paul, or whomever else the electorate-at-large feels represents a change from current policy.

Sanders and Warren play well to the activist-wing of the Democratic Party (or, as conservatives refer to them -- "The Occupy Crowd"; or, as an Obama administration official referred to them, "the Professional Left&quot . This is a group that represents about 20-30% of the party, and is over-represented here at DU. OTOH, they are the group that organizes, phone-banks, and tends to be more likely to actually show up and vote in primaries and mid-terms.

Obama had factors going for him that Hillary did not in 2008. Obama had a huge advantage in Iowa (especially in the Quad Cities area) because he was a familiar figure fron neighboring Illinois. In 2008, the "no more Bushes or Clintons) rejoinder was stronger, and in the economic free-fall of 2008, America wanted Hope very much, and at least thought at the time that they wanted change. Hillary also ran a terribly managed campaign, while Obama had two of the sharpest operatives in recent political history in Plouffe & Axelrod.

Fast forward: the economy is reasonably stable; there is nostalgia for the mid-90s -- the age of Bill Clinton; and there is concern about foreign policy. Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State, her husband is ex-President, and she probably gets Barack's endorsement as payback for Bill's speech at the 2012 convention. A sizable portion of the electorate (both in the primary and GE) will vote for Hillary because, frankly, they like Bill and hope he'll be the eminence grise behind Hillary, and still others who feel that it's time America had a woman President, and see HRC as being right for the job.

If not Hillary, then who? Bernie Sanders is a pretty old looking guy; a self-proclaimed socialist; and not among the world's gifted speakers. Even if he gets nominated, he gets slaughtered by a Jeb Bush or a Scott Walker. Martin O'Malley? The Republicans will enjoy telling everyone about how he taxed the rain in Maryland. Elizabeth Warren? Maybe, but she has zero foreign policy experience, and would have to answer questions about why she was a Republican in the 90s, and the whole Native American thing. I seriously think that if it's not Hillary, the Party needs to work to start from scratch to find someone we could agree on that could compete in the GE. Al Gore? Kirstin Gillibrand? Maybe Tammy Duckworth?

[Octafish]

192. Last month it was 60.

At this rate, he'll have a majority by November. And by this time next year, the Party will be loving him in Philly every day and every night -- as will the nation, come the election.

[Jefferson23]

195. The people who do not vote due to apathy regarding our political system has kept conservatives

in power where minorities live in high numbers. Bernie has spoken to this phenomenon
many times, if you read his opinions and theories of who and why,how this has become a
problem in US politics, you'll be able to figure out who he'll be targeting.

Many untapped voters out there, millions and millions of them. This is will be a
grassroots fight in many ways.