Thanks for the thread, Time for change.

or that it's so damn close with Cruz.

That Bernie is even close to these guys now is a very good sign. With continued exposure he could very well leap out to a commanding lead.

His claim was that because six political scientists said Bernie wasn't electable (based largely on an argument from the middle, that Bernie was 'too extreme') we should believe his 'unelectability' and that current polling showing Bernie handily beating Republicans was 'meaningless'.

Now the last time I looked, scientists used empirical data as a basis for drawing conclusions. And when you're in political science, your data often comes in the form of ... polls. So it seems a bit odd to want to ignore the current data you have, on a current race, in favour of older data that was collected in other years, with other candidates.

n/t

If we want to WIN, and I do, we'll nominate Bernie.

Forget the polls. Bernie is rising in the polls because he is exciting ordinary Americans with a message about equality and renewed voter empowerment. People who were lukewarm on politics are now on fire for the political revolution. Everyone knows it's the truth. "Enough is enough, we need a political revolution to take back our government for the people from the billionaire class."

Bernie has the message of the moment.

The man and hour have met,

The above analysis is based on hypothetical match up polls which according to Nate Silver's 538 website are worthless. The reliance on these polls by Sanders supporters amuse me. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/harrys-guide-to-2016-election-polls/

The "wide margin of error" referred to in your post applies to individual polls. The numbers in my post represent an aggregate of polls, not single polls -- and that applies for each of of the comparisons. And margins of error are always much smaller when you look at an aggregate of polls than an individual one. When you look at each aggregate of polls, and they all point in the same direction, that tells you something.

These polls are worthless and Nate Silver and others have attacked the use of these match up polls. The media likes these polls to try to promote a horse race but such polls are worthless due (a) the high margin of error (you have in effect double the margin of error) and (b) the candidate in question has not been vested.

If a poll has a margin of error of 4%(many of these polls have far higher margins of error) then to account for such margin of error, one must assume that the Sanders results against a GOP candidate could be 4% lower and Clinton's results are actually 4% higher. One cannot compare results in two separate polls without adjusting for the margin of error in each poll.

These polls also assume that the candidate has been vetted and is a viable candidate (i.e., has adequate funding to run in the general election). According to the Sanders people he has not been given any media coverage and therefore he has not been vetted. The reason for that is that the media does not think that Sanders will be the nominee and vetting Sanders would hurt the narrative that there is a horse race. Sander has some vetting issues that will hurt him if he is the nominee and Sanders is also very vulnerable to negative ads. Hypothetical match up polls also assume that the candidate can run a viable and well financed campaign. That is not the case for Sanders who is very vulnerable to negative ads on the costs of his programs and his socialism

Nate Silver and others are very clear that these polls are worthless but you are welcome to rely on these polls if that is the only way that you can attempt to show that Sanders is electable

To say that an aggregation of polls has a double margin of error, whereas in fact an aggregation of polls has a much lower margin of error than an individual poll demonstrates the height of ignorance about statistics in general and what a margin of error is.

While I still think that these polls are worthless, I am amused to see that Sanders was found to be misrepresenting these polls and that in fact his claim is not true http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/26/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-he-polls-better-against-gop-ca/

To say that these polls are useless is a gross overstatement.

Yes, compared to the razor sharp predictions that Nate Silver makes on election eve, they are quite inferior. But knowledge of Bernie's meteoric rise in the polls is not useless information. There is a reason for it, and the reason is that the American people very much like him and his message. Other little known candidates who showed no rise in the national polls have dropped out of the race. Tell them that the information they obtained from the polling was useless.

Your attacks on attributions were silly but this will settle the issue http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-is-really-unpopular-with-general-election-voters/

I think none of them matter.

We just need to get out the vote.

Here are some warnings from Nate Silver's 538 site. Warning number three is very relevant

Dana Milbank has some good comments on general election match up polls https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-would-be-insane-to-nominate-bernie-sanders/2016/01/26/0590e624-c472-11e5-a4aa-f25866ba0dc6_story.html?hpid=hp_opinions-for-wide-side_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

the electability argument need to understand it's that. As far as I can tell, it's the only real argument there is in favor of Bernie, and it's universally understood that polls this far out carry little to no information.

And this isn't just some opinion. If you look at other elections, and look at polls this far out, there is very little correlation with the outcome.

Yes, compared to the razor sharp predictions that Nate Silver makes on election eve, they are quite inferior. But knowledge of Bernie's meteoric rise in the polls is not useless information. There is a reason for it, and the reason is that the American people very much like him and his message. Other little known candidates who showed no rise in the national polls have dropped out of the race. Tell them that the information they obtained from the polling was useless.

These polls are worthless because Sanders has not been vetted by the media http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/first-read-three-weeks-go-three-margin-error-races-n493946

The chance of any of the clown car candidates beating either of them in the general election is really slim.

I keep asking this same question and I have yet to receive a good answer. How is Sanders viable in a general election contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million, the RNC candidate may spend another billion dollars and Bloomberg (who will only run if Sanders is the nominee) will be spending yet another billion dollars?

Sanders does not appear to be viable in a contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the likely GOP nominee will be able to raise another billion dollars. In addition, Bloomberg will run if Sanders is the nominee and Bloomberg is promising to spend another billion dollars. This article had a very interesting quote about the role of super pacs in the upcoming election http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/03/bernie-sanders-grassroots-movement-gains-clinton-machine

There have been many candidates with tons of money, either their own, or donations from big moneyed interests, who got nowhere. Money counts, but it isn't the only thing that counts. That's why we have voting. If a candidate is obviously a better candidate than the other ones who are running (as is the case with Bernie), that can overcome a good deal of money.

This is not using polls to predict the outcome of the election. This is a call to people who want Bernie, but will not vote for him based on a gross misconception (I know many of them). If these people continue to believe that Bernie doesn't have a chance, then he doesn't have a chance. If these people look at the numbers and take a shot at something they believe in, we can do this. The time for the peaceful, organized, totally legal revolution is now.

Nobody can say for sure that he's going to win -- or that anyone else is going to win.

But the data definitely say that he's electable -- and if people would get over the idea that he's not, I believe that he is such a superior candidate than anyone else who's running that enough voters will see that and they will vote for him in sufficient numbers that he will win.