http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

How's that for facts, finder?

One of the reasons Sanders leads in general election polling is that his favorability is higher, and that's in part because he's less well-known than Clinton and because he hasn't been the target of much negative campaigning. Clinton is a weak general election candidate, given her unfavorability -- but it's not clear that she'd do much worse against a Donald Trump or a Ted Cruz than would Sanders. Sanders does do better with younger voters and independents in general election match-ups against Trump and Cruz, but both Democrats generally beat the Republicans.

Also, as we noted last week, Barack Obama lost independents in 2012, but won the election.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/20/bernie-sanderss-campaign-manager-tried-to-argue-delegate-math-on-msnbc-it-didnt-go-well/

She's well known, that is for sure.

And not for good things.

Not sure where you are getting your #'s.

And btw, that is compared to 39% for Hillary, 30% for Trump, 37% for Kasich, and 33% for Cruz. Bernie has a significantly higher average than any other candidate on either side.

That said, I don't disagree that his favorables may go down once the Republicans start attacking him. But I don't think they have much to throw at him in terms of character, integrity, etc. People already know he's a socialist, and I have met more than one Republican who will vote for him over Trump or Cruz in spite of that.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

need we say more?

Because Clinton loses them badly.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/bernie-sanders-favorable-rating

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

hrc favorable: 38.7% unfavorable: 55.6%

what happens if he gets stopped and we end up with Hillary then we are screwed

Every MSM mention of him never fails to equate him with Marx.

that equate him with Marx.

Pointing out Sanders inability to answer questions by an editorial board are simply reporting FACTS.

Her favorability will likely sink even more in the general, because Bernie has been handling her with kid gloves. Once (presumably) Trump hammers her on the emails, on the Clinton foundation, and runs a constant loop of Bosnian sniper fire commercials and the like, she'll be that much further in the hole. It will be a tough campaign. We'd be better off with Sanders, but that's highly unlikely to happen. We're pretty much going to be stuck with this:

isn't negative. It's fact.

Pointing out Sanders is a Socialist using "Democratic" as a fig leaf is a fact.

His bio is barely alluded to. And it's not at all flattering to the man.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511441656

And that's not the only negative coverage he has gotten, that was just a rapid-fire set of 16, in one major paper.

And if you're going to say that something that is "fact" doesn't count as negative, then I guess you don't consider any of the stores about Hillary's email problems to be negative either? Negative coverage is negative coverage, whether it is fact based or not. But at least Hillary didn't get major play of nonsense negative stories like whether she was really the person in a picture.

As for the NYDN interview, even that was more spin than fact. The interviewer conflating what the Fed could do with what could be done via Dodd Frank, or attributing his comment about the Met Life decision to his entire platform on breaking up the banks, that kind of thing.