I may need a break for a few days to recover from such a drubbing.

You understand the difference between hypothetical general election match-ups and primary polling, right?

Mind you, I don't think Sanders will be the nominee. But your link doesn't refute the OP. It doesn't even relate to the OP.

This isn't one of those things about which there can be a difference of opinion. The OP has to do with primary polling between Democratic candidates (I do agree that Rasmussen doesn't have a great reputation, but that's a separate issue). What you posted has to do with a hypothetical match-up between Clinton and potential GOP opponents.

2 completely different things.

The difference means nothing. We keep hearing people say Dems are abandoning Clinton, liberals will sit home, etc. But there is not a shred of data to support that. Is there?

Keep in mind, there is a reason they are rarely polling Sanders against republicans. In fact I have not seen a signal national poll polling Sanders against the republican field. Have you?

what you posted doesn't refute the OP, because what you posted and what the OP posted are 2 very different things. You can insist that the difference doesn't mean anything or that what you posted somehow relates to the OP, but that would be like arguing 2 plus 2 equals 37.

Again, I don't think Sanders will be the nominee and, like you, I haven't seen much in the way of Sanders vs. GOP (one exception: http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/latest-national-poll-shows-bernie-sanders-beating-scott-walker-donald-trump-jeb-bush).

But you're bringing up unrelated issues. My only point was that what you posted didn't refute (or even relate to) the OP, because it didn't. Objectively-speaking, they are 2 very different things.

YMMV. Not worth arguing about in my book.

That you think hypothetical polling vs. potential GOP candidates refutes primary polling between Democratic candidates is just mind-numbing.

If you wanted to argue that Clinton's decline and Sanders's bump are not very significant, that would be one thing. You could make that argument. But your response to the OP was completely irrelevant to said OP. That's not up for debate, it's objectively evident. While it's probably not worth all of this back-and-forth, it does tell me something important about the way you operate. You're not just apples and oranges. You're like apples and sofas.

And one is an aggregate of national polls. That's the first common sense to be injected. Obviously the second one has more credibility.

Secondly, the Rasmussen poll shows (like every other poll) a huge gap when comparing HRC to Sanders. That is the second injection of common sense.

The third injection of common sense is that 25% of the Dem party voters consider themselves extremely liberal, so the fact that 9% of them switched to Sanders after he entered the race is completely unsurprising, and not indicative of anything. He appears to be at his ceiling, but time will tell.

The final injection of common sense is that national polling shows those Sanders voters will vote for her. Ergo, the Rasmussen poll is not indicative of much at all if you compare it to the national polling.

Does that help?

changes the fact that the link you posted refutes the OP. The OP is about the rise and fall of primary polling numbers. Period. That's all it is. Your link was to a poll that is unrelated and irrelevant to the OP. And the points you just made are irrelevant to that point.

Again, you can argue that the OP isn't very meaningful (as you're doing, for example, with your 3rd point above) and that Rasmussen doesn't have a strong reputation (though numerous other polls also show that Sanders is polling higher than he once did and that Clinton is polling lower than she once did). But you can't argue that your link was related or relevant, because it simply isn't.

We will have to agree to disagree.

You say it's 37. Agree to disagree.

Seriously, some things aren't up for debate. Primary polling numbers between Clinton and Sanders are not related to hypothetical polling numbers between Clinton and, say, Bush or Trump. That's so obvious that it's hard to believe we're having this debate.

However reading the tea leaves of polling data is an art form, not a black and white subject by any means.

A)

Okay, let's say the OP posted a link to hypothetical polling numbers between Sanders and potential GOP candidates that showed Sanders beating each of them (like the link I provided previously). And the OP said something such as, "See, Sanders is more likely to win than Clinton."

You could then show hypothetical polling numbers between Clinton and potential GOP candidates that show Clinton beating each of them by a larger margin than Sanders does. Doing that would be relevant and would successfully refute the OP.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

B)

Whereas what you did was attempt to refute the easily verifiable fact that the Clinton vs. Sanders numbers have shifted (which, again, is all the OP is really saying) by showing hypothetical match-ups between Clinton and GOP candidates.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Surely you see the difference. And, no, I'm not calling you "Shirley."

"It's not going to be a "happy" New Year for Team Weather Vain"

You can apologize any time.

The person who posted the "weather vain" comment is clearly implying that Sanders is headed toward the nomination. Now, you and I can agree that that's highly unlikely and could quite easily refute that in a number of ways (pointing out that his deficit is still very large even if it's declined a bit, pointing out that Clinton's campaign is spending much more money, pointing out that Clinton is well-known and that 25% of registered voters still haven't even heard of Sanders according to a CNN poll, pointing out that Sanders doesn't have the backing of the party establishment, etc., etc., etc.). See, numerous valid ways to refute the "weather vain" poster. But your reply wasn't one. You posting Clinton's hypothetical match-ups with GOP candidates doesn't refute the "weather vain" comment regarding Clinton's primary prospects. It's unrelated and irrelevant data, as one is about an ongoing match-up between Clinton and Sanders and the other is about a hypothetical match-up between Clinton and Bush/Trump/et al. Forensics (Speech and Debate) 101. And I think this horse has been soundly beaten.

That's really the best thing to do at this point.

whether your reply was to the OP or the "weather vain" poster, your reply was equally irrelevant. Again, there were numerous valid ways to go about refuting the weather vain poster (I'll throw out another one: Sanders isn't very charismatic in a world obsessed with celebrity and the Cult of Personality). You instead replied with completely unrelated data comparing Clinton with GOP candidates when the weather vain poster was commenting on the shift in the Clinton-Sanders numbers. One doesn't have anything to do with the other. Try as you might, that's not subjective or up for debate. One simply doesn't have anything to do with the other. Period. You might as well be comparing baseball statistics with football statistics.

It's still a 26 point lead, after months of relentless attacks in the press. If Sanders becomes seen as a serious contender, he will be attacked as well (not by the GOP because they want to run against him) but by Clinton and the media more generally.

I see that around here there's an epidemic of making irrelevant points. Sigh. What does pointing out the difference between their numbers have to do with my comment to Maggie?

Yes, Clinton has a large lead in the polls. No, I don't think Sanders will be the nominee. But that doesn't have any bearing on my pointing out to Maggie that a poll about hypothetical general election match-ups doesn't have anything to do with the shift in primary polling numbers that has occurred (again, the latter is what the OP is about--nothing more).

Anyway, as for the GOP preferring to face Sanders, I'm not sure that's true given how polarizing Clinton is. I'm not saying you're wrong--it's a fair opinion. I'm just not convinced you're right--if for no other reason than it can't be proven. It's conjecture.

If you take HRC's 9 point slide and add Bernie's 20 point gain then Senator Sanders has moved 29 points closer to Secretary Clinton. By any metric, that is a substantial movement in the polls.

and does not publish or broadcast negative ads.

I don't think any candidates or interest groups will dare to disseminate negative ads or negative articles about Sanders all that much because they will get too much blow-back.

Sanders' approach pretty much limits not only himself but other candidates to a discussion of the issues and not of political gossip.

Candidates, regardless of party, will look very bad if they are in any way personally associated with negative attacks on Bernie. They will look like they are dirty players, like they somehow cheat.

this is the third or fourth so far showing that the more people get to know him, the more support he is getting, blowing away the myth that 'Dems can't win on a Progressive Message'.

If we can get enough folks to believe again, and not simply always choose the 'triangulation' candidate, we can get a lot of better candidates into office.

Give it up Hillary. You're 'done.'

to arrive a meaningful number.

It isn't that you "need more than 500," per se. But the greater the sample the smaller the margin of error. For this particular poll, the margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points.

There are issues of how much push is in each question
There are issues of whether representation was correct in participants
And there are questions about how the representation was mathematically balanced to deal with uneveness in polling and lying by participants.

536 -representative- voters polled would give better than a 5% margin of error on questions that don't have built in push.

One of the problems is people lie about how likely they will be primary voters.

Primary participation is really very poor among democrats, and it has patterns in identifiable strata of age, race, and income

Dealing with the math that balances those things is not done very well by most polling.

hatred of Democrats and especially Hillary Clinton and President Obama didn't blind them so.

Fact of the matter is, Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. She has won and will keep the 70-80% African-American demographic and 73% Latino demographic. She's won over 94 House Dem Reps endorsements, 29 Dem Senator endorsements, and 7 solid Dem Governors.

Bernie Sanders has won exactly ZERO.

I don't see him winning beyond New Hampshire and Vermont. Maybe another State here or there, but that's it.

So of course they are going to misled to smear the Dem front runner. And Bernie supporters seem to love republican talking points nowadays. Sad.

More and more volunteer groups for Bernie are forming every week, spreading name recognition and the message.

We are going to pull this off.

BULLSHIT. Can’t be.

Accuracy hasn't been their strong suit.

Jesus who would even fall for that?

They definitely did in 2012. Apparently their symptoms are communicable. LOL!

Reality: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/26/1415688/-Hillary-Clinton-s-poll-numbers-haven-t-dropped-at-all-and-this-one-chart-proves-it#

If she suspended her campaign "until all of the legal questions about her use of the private e-mail server are resolved", that would be it, she'd simply lose.

He can make a single case that he can actually pass one of his proposals through congress. LOL - JK. But it makes as much sense as someone suggesting she should suspend her campaign because of a fake republican smear campaign.

would have one hell of a time getting his proposals passed. Precisely because they require things like a drastic reduction in military spending, a substantial hike in tax rates for the wealthy, etc. In other words, his proposals are too progressive. Under Eisenhower, the top marginal tax rate was 91%...heaven forbid we hike it up to, say, 50%. Gasp!

That's what makes it all the more absurd that so many insist that the DU opposition to the party establishment is coming predominantly from a right wing perspective.

I just think certain group are co-opting rethug talking points and tactics to smear her. Just because they borrow heavily from rethug talking points and tactics doesn't mean they agree with rethugs. At least beyond the "I hate HRC" meme.

I guess it never occurs to them that there are good reasons republicans hate her. She kicks their ass. Personally liberals joining in with rethugs to smear her in an attempt to defeat our front runner disgusts me. YMMV.

Whereas Clinton supporters keep insinuating that that constitutes the bulk of DU Clinton opposition. The primary tactic of the right is to paint Clinton as an extreme liberal, which is certainly not the leftist critique of Clinton and other Corporate Democrats.

... is using terms like "it makes as much sense as ..." There are people who don't want any sense to be made, or to be injected into the discussion.

I keep reading here that the PTB in the Party are panicking, and are desperate for Biden to enter the race and "save"
the Dems from certain defeat in the GE due to HRC's many "failures".

Seriously, in what bizarro universe would the Party look at Hill's numbers and say, "OMG! She's far ahead of the Dem competition, and she beats every Republican in head-to-head match-ups. We've got to get someone else! She's toast!"

Swear to God, this place is absolutely mind-boggling at times - and these days, more often than not.

That would be insane. And yes, this place is definitely mind boggling lately.

concerned. If it doesn't she should fire some of her team and hire someone who knows what they're doing. There's still 6 months before the first primaries and Sanders is closing quite a bit....