So that they can beat her up in the GE.

They are flat out scared of Bernie.

Republicans are donating to Bernie. I've seen it myself.

There are some republicans who are not idiots.

But the establishment politicians are scared of Bernie. Mainly because he's the real deal, and not like any Democrat they ever had to face.

I'm happy to be able to educate you here, today, Sonderwoman.

They have no power in the primary unless they switch parties and vote for the Bern.

As for other efforts, they do have an itch for all things Clinton, yes. Which makes for bad news in the GE.

Against Bernie all they have is... well, nothing, except for the coming communist arrows which really are just dull points the public will swat away.

The establishment politicians want her in the GE because they know how to beat her.

They do not know how to beat Bernie. He's unlike anything they have ever faced in a GE.

Which makes it even more maddening that the democratic establishment all but insists HC is the nominee. I think once you get outside the beltway and dlc and dnc fanbase her likability plummets. We here on DU tend to be biased in as much as we think the average democrat voter thinks the way we do, is up to date on things the way we are, and prioritizes the issues the same way we do. Mainstream America is nowhere near sold on HC and some people think she is a slam dunk at the same time they refuse to acknowledge Bernie's populist rise and sure as heck do not want to consider why it's happening. If HC is the nominee we lose. IMO.

I don't think you have really been thinking about it clearly.

The anti-establishment republicans, however, will help Bernie.

Bernie can't be beat in the GE because he will get the indie votes over the scum republicans.

You tell us why you think they can.

Really, tho, debating you is like debating the sky. Prove there is more than just wind with a reply stating why you think R's can beat Bernie and I'll thinkabout it.

Sanders is trying to show how corporate power is connected to voter suppression, to militarized police forces, to income equality and to the basic corruption of the political system.

Suppression laws.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420262/bernie-sanders-republicans-myra-adams

Think about that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251611406#post47

A pinebox post:
------------------

Republicans voting for Bernie? And?

And? Doesn't that speak volumes?
Think about it, many republicans these days see their party for what it has become and have become completely disenfranchised. Would you rather have them vote Libertarian because that's their other path.

Let's take a look at what the admins of the Republicans For Bernie Sanders page on facebook say, shall we?
https://www.facebook.com/republicansforbernie/posts/1466058607031191

FAQs about Republicans for Bernie Sanders...
'As a Republican, how can you possibly agree with Bernie on every issue?'
Speaking only for myself (the page administrator), the truth is that I don't. Can any of us actually claim that? There are some issues on which I am to his "right," and at least one issue on which I am to his "left." But then hey, Bernie Sanders may be deemed to be to the right of Hillary Clinton on a couple matters as well. It sort of seems like only a narcissist would demand a politician who agrees with him/her on every point. Good politics are about honesty and compromise, and there may be no politician alive who understands this better than Bernie.
'Are you REALLY a Republican?'
I believe we have a wide assortment of Republicans, former Republicans, and "recovering Republicans," as well as supportive Independents, Greens, Libertarians, and Democrats represented here. Speaking for myself, yes indeed, I am a card carrying Republican and have been for a long time.
'If you hold so many progressive values, why not just become a Democrat?'

That's a good question, and one about which people have expressed many opinions on this page. Allow me to try to summarize: Exactly why should I become a Democrat? My membership in a political party does not dictate how I have to vote. Furthermore, political parties are by nature (at least to some degree) collectively organized entities in a state of constant flux. It is only relatively recently that the two major U.S. parties have become so polarized and rigidly aligned with modern notions of "liberal" and "conservative." Historically - and we're not even talking that far back - both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have included significant numbers of liberal, moderate, and conservative members. I would venture to say that there's been something of a mass exodus of moderates and progressives from the Republican Party in recent times toward non-party affiliation. This event is often hailed by liberals as an evolutionary step, but I would contend that it has also been a major factor in the Republican Party becoming increasingly conservative. If you have a room filled with introverts, extroverts, and inbetweeners, and the latter two groups leave, then what is the reason for the room suddenly getting so quiet? Perhaps that's not the most apt metaphor in the world, and I truly don't mean to lay blame at the feet of independents whom I actually admire greatly, but I think you get the point. Moderates and progressives are needed in the Republican Party in order to help steer the ship. Otherwise, it just becomes a ship of fools - as it largely has already - captained by religious fundamentalists and billionaires. I, for one, have no interest in letting those folks have their own ship for even one second longer. Many U.S. presidential elections seem to end up becoming a fight for the halfway point between the platforms of the two major political parties. So until our two-party system changes into something more sensible, it's important that we establish the Republican Party in a more moderate position in order to render the halfway point at least somewhat palatable. But does our party leadership really listen us? Well, that's debatable. At least we periodically get censuses in the mail from them asking our opinions on future party directions. There are myriad other ways of influencing the direction of a party, but it takes numbers to do that. Also I must ask in return, if you support the politics of Bernie Sanders (and don't live in a closed primaries state), why not become a Green? Isn't that closer to the mark? And is the Democratic Party really all that great? Hillary Clinton sure wants us to believe so. I'm not so sure. There are certainly lots of good Democrats, but many Democratic politicians seem to be wolves in sheep's clothing. At least with most of the current Republican politicians, you simply know that they're wolves.

'Will you register as a Democrat in order to vote for Bernie in the primaries?'
Again, speaking only as the administrator of this page: You're darned tootin'. I have the day marked, and plan to register a week early just to be on the safe side. The reason for this decision, of course, is that I live in a state with closed primary elections. Many Republicans actually live in states with open primaries where registering as a Democrat is not required to vote amongst the Democratic contenders.
'Do you have ulterior motives for supporting Bernie?'
No. There is (or at least was) another Republicans for Bernie page whose self-described purpose was to defeat the Democratic Party in the 2016 election by ensuring that the Democrats nominate a candidate who is not electable. My guess is that they don't know they're playing with fire. Bring it on.
'But the Republicans have _______ . Doesn't that bother you?'
Of course. Probably. It depends on the atrocity, and it depends on the Republican. Again, speaking for myself as a U.S. American Christian Caucasian male rural gun owner whose ancestors came over on the Mayflower, I'm a clearly a member of several privileged groups responsible for great atrocities. Rather than dwelling on the many ways I am guilty by association, I instead endeavor to use my humble life to serve the Earth, humanity, and the Spirit of Love with all my heart. On a good day, I maybe even succeed a little.
Have a good weekend, y'all
‪#?BernieSanders2016‬

They did include cell phones (40% of the sample). But they also didn't bother to get a statistically significant sample of under-50 voters, largely due to their tiny overall sample size.

but this isn't LBN, so enjoy...

(Can't get enough of that)

Sure way to victory. Worked great for Mitt.

That was an awesome rejoinder

"That was an awesome rejoinder" ~ Cap'n Sunshine

I agree. Great rejoinder. Throwing stones in glass houses is dangerous to those standing in the house. Cap'n ought to take her advice on the matter.

I trust Ben and love Bernie, so that would mean something to me.

http://www.pdafund.com/

that m$m polls have her up, i mean what would corporate america have to gain by her being in?



love tnt!

You don't have:
11,000 people show up for a rally in Phoenix

Or

15,000 people show up for a rally in Seattle

Or

28,000 people show up for a rally in Portland, Or.

Or

27,500 people show up for a rally in LA

OR

3,000 People show up for a rally, when two days prior, Hillary had 500 show up at a rally AT THE SAME PLACE - UNH

And expect ANYONE to believe Hillary leads in the polls. Reality says otherwise.

Polls that push an agenda are not scientific, and polls that are too lazy to poll (with statistical relevance) voters under 50 are not scientific.

I guess in your world it must be true.

but absolutely she can lead and lead HUGE and Bernie can still have these turnouts.

vote for him to if only I would vote for him." Nobody will vote for Bernie but the people.

Wars, wars, wars and MORE wars, prisons for profits and support for Wall St. Over Main St. Is why Hillary couldn't possibly be ahead in the polls. Keep dreaming. Reality is going to hit you all like a brick.

Hillary supporters don't need to go to rallies or hoot and holler to demonstrate our support. We are quietly confident that our candidate is the best out there and will prevail.

Let the 10 - 15% scream all they want at rallies. It won't make a dimes worth of difference come the primaries in a few months.

Funniest thing I've read all day.

Frankly that probably works out best for Clinton. If the rank and file of her supporters showed up, it would probably toast any chance she had.

...hence the need to halt debate.

You actually believe that all of the polls polls are either incompetent or intentionally lying. How that any different from people who deny evolution or climate change? You refuse to believe the statistical evidence because it doesn't correspond with what you want to hear.

And she is the middle ground in politics that Americans will vote for.

And, bonus, twice elected Big Dog is back in the WH!

The GOP are terrified of the Clinton nomination, because it means two popular Clintons to fight, isn't that obvious?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251611077

What America needs is a REAL debate, a Snopes debate maybe, not hosted by a for profit media outlet, would draw a huge audience that is out there that want to discuss real problems and real solutions and have had enough of the childish media fixation on personalities over policies, I know it.

It doesn't make sense to me -- but it is interesting to see this. I am not seeing the numbers of people at her rallies, not seeing the enthusiasm for her in my area, in our Illinois media -- and she's originally from Illinois. Would like to know the questions asked and the sampling group data, the geographic areas where this data was pulled.


edit to add:

lol -- here's my answer to the above -- http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251610020

No one under 50 was polled and if you scroll further down, no one from the Northeast, Midwest, South or West were polled -- urban, suburban ID only.

Somebody spreading those rumors doesnt know how to read poll results.

that DU link links to the PDF from CNN about the poll. Check out page 7 here -

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/09/20/dempoll.pdf

Yes, people under 50 were polled.

"Crosstabs on the following pages only include results for subgroups with enough unweighted cases to produce a sampling error of
+/- 8.5 percentage points or less. Some subgroups represent too small a share of the national population to produce crosstabs with
an acceptable sampling error. Interviews were conducted among these subgroups, but results for groups with a sampling error
larger than +/-8.5 percentage points are not displayed and instead are denoted with "N/A"."

And oh what a dunce I am. I am just so stupid. But hey, you really schooled me Travis.

Good. Good to hear.

CBS CNN whatever.

And? Doesn't that speak volumes?
Think about it, many republicans these days see their party for what it has become and have become completely disenfranchised. Would you rather have them vote Libertarian because that's their other path.

Let's take a look at what the admins of the Republicans For Bernie Sanders page on facebook say, shall we?
https://www.facebook.com/republicansforbernie/posts/1466058607031191

eom

But we don't. We start with the caucuses in Iowa, then a primary in New Hampshire and then, well I forget the exact order of what happens next, but the nomination is won state by state, in primaries and caucuses. More to the point, Sanders is, as I understand it, currently leading in those first two states. If he wins them, things will suddenly be very different.

For those of you too young to remember, Lyndon Johnson decided not to run for a second full term after a challenger (Eugene McCarthy) came in a strong second. I do understand that Hillary is not Lyndon, Eugene is not Bernie, and this is going to be 2016, not 1968. And yet . . . .

I honestly think that the Hillary supporters and the Democratic establishment vastly underestimate both how much Hillary is despised out there, and how low the longing for a woman President actually is. Vast numbers of Republican women will NOT cross party lines to vote for her if she's nominated. But vast numbers of men, especially men who think women don't have any place in politics at all, will come out to vote against her. So will all the conservative Christians of either gender.

We are still far enough before the first primaries and caucuses that name recognition is still a large factor, although Bernie is beginning to be named by main stream media.

And in that poll, Biden is a red herring. He's not going to be running and by even asking about him whoever did the poll is simply hoping to keep the idea of a horse race alive. Whether all the supposed Biden supporters will simply drift back to Hillary remains to be seen.

42-24=80

Hillary's current lead 42%-24%=18%, Hillary's lead in previous poll 37%-27% = 10%. The proportion by which Hillary's lead increased is 8%/10% = 0.8 = 80%. So it makes sense, it is a substantial increase. But a little iffy as to numbers meaning what they seem, since going from 50.5-49.5 to 51-49 would be a 100% increase. The 8% absolute increase (from 10% to 18% lead) is still good news for Hillary.

cnn is owned by time warner.

cooking the books for their corporate candidate.

not a surprise, although it has me concerned about that first cnn debate.....

...in the latest CNN poll, and by 18 points in a CNN poll in mid-August. That's better than he did in earlier CNN polls.

There was an early September CNN poll which showed him trailing Hillary Clinton by only 10 points; it was an outlier. We shouldn't conclude a downward trajectory because of one poll in early September which said the race was closer than other polls by CNN and other organizations.

Page 3 shows CNN's current and previous polling results:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/09/20/dempoll.pdf