With nary a debate too. Ain't it grand?

eom

Joe's a great guy, but he's the past, not the future. He has nothing worthwhile to say about the real issues.

He's this year's Hubert Humphrey-in-1968, and his candidacy would be as irrelevant as HHH's was that year.

The difference would be that Joe Biden would be trying to succeed an incumbent Democratic president who is hugely popular with rank and file Democrats. Hubert Horatio Humphrey, being a decent man and vastly superior to his Republican opponent notwithstanding, was trying to succeed an incumbent Democratic president who was presiding over an unpopular war and whose popularity with members of his own party had waned.

35% haven't heard enough of Sanders and 11% Undecided about him to form an opinion.

Just another name recognition poll.

How can you expect them to think that person is electable.

he's been on MTP twice...is said to have been before crowds in the thousands. Whats the problem then, why isn't he getting traction.

which is somewhere in the range of 1% of the U.S. population.

He has a long way to go to match the name recognition of a former First Lady, former Presidential candidate, and former Secretary of State.

to don't know who he is. I'm the first person that they have talked to who mentioned him or is for him. So we have a lot of talking and meeting with people to do.

...and was surprised that she hadn't heard of him. We forum types can forget how little any of this stuff gets through to the public at large, and how much time and effort it actually takes to break into the awareness of the general population.

I flipped from Hill to Sanders personally pretty soon after his announced, and I want him to make it.

But, he is fighting a much bigger battle than a lot of supporters can see beyond their misty gaze at this point.

Hill has been running for President for a quarter century now ... Next in line for the first (woman) after getting passed over the last go around to the first black president ... And, just the general stupid assery of the people of this country, an INFINITELY bigger hurdle than a lot of Bernie supporters get.

I have been IN politics at the local level and I talk to a lot of people about politics - the percentage of people making informed, reasoned, thoughtful and reality based decisions on elections is so stunningly small it is amazing it isn't worse than it is.

he has a 15% unfavorable rating — compared to 9% for Hillary.

Lots of good nuggets in that poll.

HRC has good overall numbers on empathy, managerial skills, and leadership.

But, I'm not seeing what you are.

Thank God.

eom

and up to 78% with Second choice votes. This is going to be a Landslide. There is no credible evidence otherwise except for some TV Networks with too much time on their hands

Should we simply hope the GOP candidate has even higher negatives?

Is HRC really inevitable? Ask Hillary in 2008.

What's being off by twenty percent among , errrr, friends?



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

eom

The fact that Bernie is largely an unknown at this point is an asset in this election. Hillary is the establishment, and people dislike and distrust her.

She leads in the polls, she leads in endorsements, she leads at the off shore betting sites, she leads in cash on hand but a septuagenarian independent socialist from a homogeneous state that is the size of a congressional district can run a better race. If you believe that there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion.

She has net negatives of nearly 30% among Independents, that are the largest segment of national voters. She'll probably lose in the General. That's the bottom line.

She starts at an extreme deficit. She's amazingly polarizing -- she occupies a part of the spectrum that's been called "extreme Centrist" -- so much so that she turns off a sizable percentage of left Democrats who are the base of any sucessful GOTV.

....they do have this table:



More than half those polls don't have an opinion or "haven't heard of" (I find that a cop out) of any of the other candidates. And the gap between favorable/unfavorable for ANY of the five candidates is a mere 5%, and Clinton's favorability is still almost double her nearest competitor.

As for those 55% who have not opinion or haven't heard of that closest competitor, I thought he was "exciting the masses"?

It would be interesting to see how he would shake up the primaries, although I still don't think he'll run.

It will rival Duke-N Carolina, Lakers-Celtics, Red Sox-Yankees, Bears-Packers, and so on. This should be great Tee Vee viewing!

a travesty our "democracy" is.

Dynasty rule no matter who wins.

That is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

If you think about it, Bush I was President from 1980-1992. Reagan was a puppet and a puppet suffering from dementia at that. Then we had Clinton I from 1992-2000. Then Bush II from 2000-2008. I guess they thought it would be too obvious if we went right back to Clinton so we were given Obama to break the pattern. Now if it's Clinton or Bush again we are back in synch.

Godzilla-Mothra, Flash Gordon-Ming the Merciless, Kasparov-Deep Blue, Hulk Hogan-Andre the Giant, Beatles-Dave Clark 5, Ralph Nader-General Motors, Frankenstein-the Space Monster, Ginger-Mary Ann, Ripley-Alien, Roy Rogers-Dale Evans, and Wally Cox-Floyd Patterson all rolled into one! I can't wait!

We don't elect people that way.

Yay! For name recognition.

CBS, a corporate owned shill of the 1% posts poll results.

Next.

I agree with you.

Did you mean to post to me?

Nate Silver has a great article on the the predictive power of various kinds of data. As with most things, he argues that no one set of data is absolutely predictive, but that taken together as a group, the predictive power increases. Here's the article:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/theres-no-perfect-way-to-sort-the-candidates-for-a-primary-debate/

He makes the point that National Polls are not always the strongest predictor of primary success, though they are strongly correlated. But there are other data sets which can add more data and increase predictive power.

It is unwise, even foolish to reject a data set simply because it conflicts with your desired outcome. I don't think you'd be talking down national polls if they showed Bernie surging ahead, for example. But take a look at the other data areas and think about it. You can still disagree, of course, but keep it in mind.

favorable ratings. She has a year to do so. Bernie Sanders is gaining on her in NH and she will have to give a agenda that will inspire the voters.

By election day, my bumper sticker will be 2 1/2 years old.

in your avatar?

Because I don't.

BTW, that woman is in her late 20s/early 30s and looks older than me at 45.

I think Hillary only thinks that it's her turn.

I'm sure you will win over a few of the undecideds. Maybe not 20 points worth, but some. Others might casually remove themselves from the conversation.

But, we will, if we don't change.

I'm REALLY middle aged. I have an old woman's baby-gut, but a young woman's hair and skin. I really am all things middle. Middle class, middle aged, middle income. I hope I can, as The Middle, reach out.

We really will have it that bad, if not worse, if we don't do something.

Are you suggesting she wouldn't help her own mother?

Over twenty years of taking on the best and the worst the GOP can fling at her. People respect that. They respect that she put herself in the National and International arena, for over twenty years. If she has more name recognition it's because she has done more; she has risked more. She gets under their skin and wins. She has survived all their bullshit.

You gain name recognition by meeting people, working with people, challenging people, listening to people from all walks of life with any background--over years of sustained effort.

I like Bernie, but he's going to have to do a lot more telethons and Thom Hartman "Brunches with Bernie."

It's called pressing the flesh, people.

It seems Hillarys numbers are now staying very consistent in this area as are Sanders. I have no clue why they are still including Biden. My guess would be to promote the image that Hillary is simply not running away with it, even though it still shows that even with Biden included. There is a serious interest in corporate media to show Sanders as a contender. A runaway does them no good.

Go Hillary!