Pretty good considering all the vile negative crap out there

Wait until she Really starts.

direction of Bernie. You better hope things improve when she really starts or you'll be casting your general vote for Senator Sanders.

news story linked).

I'm happy at how well Clinton is doing (I'm not a hater), and I'm ecstatic at how well Sanders is doing.

I'm not worried.

Damn, I'm a nice guy. But although I'm with Bernie until the end, I am also happy that some on DU are happy too!

I see him as the best of Bernie and HRC ... He is, clearly, a strong progressive candidate with the "can do"/"has done" chops (look at his plans); but, without the right and left's HRC, "I hate her" vibe.

I see O'Malley as a part of the discussion ... He's the best of Bernie and HRC ... He is, clearly, a strong progressive candidate with the "can do"/"has done" chops (look at his plans); but, without the right and left's HRC, "I hate her" vibe.

Clinton, and so there does not appear to be a need or yearning for Vice President Biden to join the primary.

I'm glad O'Malley is in the debate, but I suspect that O'Malley is not playing a big part in Biden's decision to run or not (although O'Malley has locked up some Chesapeake Bay support that Biden might have received if he had jumped in three months ago); that is the only reason I omitted any mention of O'Malley.

No offense intended.

O'Malley provides a pretty good baseline for how well a competent plausible candidate, with a relatively low national voter familiarity profile who the media does not give extensive coverage to, tends to fare in the Summer of the year preceding a Presidential election. That's particularly true when there is a Mega high profile candidate like Hillary, in the race sucking up oxygen.

That Sanders is polling this well nationally at this stage under these circumstances is damn impressive.

Wonder what the results would've been had he been included, probably even better for Bernie. I think this is the best non-Biden poll for Bernie so far if I'm correct.

I wouldn't believe them if they told me water was wet!

Not a very scientific sampling

Use 1000-1500 likely voters and see how the results change....

I see DUers say this a lot and that's inaccurate.

A survey sample of 536 has a margin of error of around 4.2
A survey sample of 1000 has a margin of error of around 3.1
A survey sample of around 1500 has a margin of error of around 2.5

So, with a sample of 536 if you took 100 separate samples then the overall percentage of people responding the same way would be within 4.2% of the reported results in 95 of these.

The margin of error is a little bigger for a sample of 536 than 1500 but it has nothing to do with being scientific. It has to do with probability. HOW they sample (methodology) would speak to the issue of how "scientific" the poll is. If the methodology is sound then a sample size of 536 can result in illustrative results.

where would Hillary be? Have you noticed that Hillary is very careful how she addresses issues that might directly affect her corporate sponsors? Its seems she has been playing it safe lately and not talking about subject matter like income inequality or minimum wage issues but chooses instead to talk about the Iran deal or gun control issues.
I want to hear her talk about the billionaires owning our government but she wont.