Bernie Polls Better Against Trump Than Does Hillary

....than she who shall be nameless. 

http://www.inquisitr.com/3081859/new-poll-shows-bernie-sanders-is-the-best-candidate-to-stop-trump-not-hillary-clinton/

So if they want so badly to defeat Trump, will MOL Hillary voters stand behind the guy who can really beat him???

Oh, because both Trump and Sanders want to raise taxes on the wealthy. Not Ms. Clinton, though. She hasn't mentioned that!

CRICKETS!!!!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

springgreen2 said:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

cOMPARED TO;

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

absolutely better!

Nate Silver
‏@NateSilver538
13h13 hours ago

For *****'s sake, America. You're going to make [me] go on a rant about general election polls -- in May?

I would trust a general election poll over Nate Silver, that's for sure.

it's a shame he polls worse against Clinton.  

... in closed primaries.

dave said:

... in closed primaries.

I'm looking forward to MOLs new open moderating format.

dave said:

... in closed primaries.

So are the primaries wrong or the polls?  

So Bernie wins the Nebraska caucus a while back, and gets the delegates. Yesterday, they throw an actual primary, and Hillary wins it decisively. Shouldn't she, in all fairness, get the majority of the delegates? I ask this of my Sandernista compadres.

Bernie does better in polls because the republicans have been bashing Hillary for years.  If Bernie gets the nomination, the Bernie bashing would be in full force and then if someone took a new poll it would say Hillary would have done better.  The primary process is supposed to give a party the candidate most of their supporters want, not the one who polls better.  

And when was the last time a political poll 6 months in advance of a major election was close to being accurate?  

mikescott said:

Bernie does better in polls because the republicans have been bashing Hillary for years.  If Bernie gets the nomination, the Bernie bashing would be in full force and then if someone took a new poll it would say Hillary would have done better.  The primary process is supposed to give a party the candidate most of their supporters want, not the one who polls better.  

And when was the last time a political poll 6 months in advance of a major election was close to being accurate?  

This is a good point.  On the one hand, Sanders has good appeal as an outsider in this election cycle.  On the other hand, we don't know what will be the effect of attack ads portraying him as the America's Hugo Chavez, because he hasn't really come under attack yet.

max_weisenfeld said:

For *****'s sake, America. You're going to make [me] go on a rant about general election polls -- in May?

This is a related and even better point.

Also, the use of the word "absolutely" made me wonder if springgreen2's understanding of margin of error is as keen as her grasp of delegate apportionment.

springgreen2 and "understanding" in the same sentence...that's a stretch.

springgreen2 said:

....than she who shall be nameless. 

http://www.inquisitr.com/3081859/new-poll-shows-bernie-sanders-is-the-best-candidate-to-stop-trump-not-hillary-clinton/




So if they want so badly to defeat Trump, will MOL Hillary voters stand behind the guy who can really beat him???

i'll stand behind whoever has the most delegates.  for all the bitching that sanders has done about how "undemocratic" the process is (when he doesn't win a state), what kind of mental acrobatics does it take to make him advocate  giving someone with fewer votes the nomination based on a poll?  hypocrisy, thy name is sanders.

I think every HRC voter will support a Bernie candidacy. Wish Bernie voters felt the same.

mikescott said:

Bernie does better in polls because the republicans have been bashing Hillary for years.  If Bernie gets the nomination, the Bernie bashing would be in full force and then if someone took a new poll it would say Hillary would have done better.  The primary process is supposed to give a party the candidate most of their supporters want, not the one who polls better.  

And when was the last time a political poll 6 months in advance of a major election was close to being accurate?  

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/05/bernie_sanders_electability_argument_is_still_a_myth.html

An interesting article on the types of attacks Republicans will use on Sanders if he wins the nomination.

I keep reminding myself I am a Bernie supporter every time I read a post from Springgreen2. 

  Bernie is a good person and I agree with him more than Hillary but bottom line is that he is a career politician and I take everything he says with a grain of salt and understand he can only do so much if he ever managed to get elected as POTUS.  He will make a good VP.  

 I will vote for Hillary over Trump.  

Sanders as Clinton's VP?  I can see the parody - Old and Older.  Worse than the Yankees.

Seriously, the Democrats need to find somebody a bit younger.  

The biggest problem with the focus on Clinton is that she is not the future of the Democratic Party.

max_weisenfeld said:

Nate Silver
‏@NateSilver538
13h13 hours ago

For *****'s sake, America. You're going to make [me] go on a rant about general election polls -- in May?

He said f*** on Twitter? You can do that?

Maybe I should check Twitter more often. 

mikescott said:

Bernie does better in polls because the republicans have been bashing Hillary for years.  If Bernie gets the nomination, the Bernie bashing would be in full force and then if someone took a new poll it would say Hillary would have done better.  The primary process is supposed to give a party the candidate most of their supporters want, not the one who polls better.  

In the current absurd system I have no clue as to what the primary process is "supposed" to do. It used to be that the primaries were to allow voters to select local people whom they knew and trusted as Delegates to a National Convention where they would then use their judgment in picking the best candidate to represent the Party based on a number of criteria.

In my opinion that old way is preferable to a system that has allowed yahoos to chose a totally unacceptable and possibly fascistic clown as the nominee of one of the two major parties.

tjohn said:

This is a good point.  On the one hand, Sanders has good appeal as an outsider in this election cycle.  On the other hand, we don't know what will be the effect of attack ads portraying him as the America's Hugo Chavez, because he hasn't really come under attack yet.

Hugo Chavez? We are talking about attacks from Trump. Not sure if he knows who Chavez was but his supporters certainly don't. Again, we are dealing with Trump. He is far more likely to attack Sanders for being married to an older overweight woman. Of course the National Inquirer might find a picture of a guy who looks something like Sanders hanging out with a guy who looks something like Ted Cruz's dad.  

Trump has already gone on record as saying we will become like Venezuela if Clinton or Sanders are elected.

tjohn said:

Trump has already gone on record as saying we will become like Venezuela if Clinton or Sanders are elected.

We'll have oil?

LOST said:

tjohn said:

Trump has already gone on record as saying we will become like Venezuela if Clinton or Sanders are elected.

We'll have oil?

That's probably what he meant.  But that oil is high-sulfur crap that, conveniently, few refiners outside of America can process.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

Read it,

springgreen2 said:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Compare with above,

Add it up,