As Bernie's recognition improves, we'll see this shift.

He only does slightly better than Clinton.

Lots of duct tape.

Fortunately, the Dems are very unlikely to make the mistake of nominating him. As of now, his odds in the betting markets are at about 10%.

You're thinking Hillary would have no problems with attack ads from the GOP? You think her ratings on trustworthiness are so high that GOP ads won't be able to find a chink in her armor?

I'll tell you my thoughts. I'll bet the GOP will spend a bazillion dollars on attack against Bernie calling him a... a... --wait for it!-- a SOCIALIST! And all the far right voters will say, "Oooooh! That's so horrible! We're afraid!"

And all the people who were planning to vote for Bernie or even thinking of voting for Bernie will collectively say "Yeah, that's one of the reasons we're voting for him. Go, Bernie!"

the amount of money he wants to spend, being the furthest left candidate to ever run for any major office outside of a few blue states. And then he loses. Especially since he won't have the funds to be able to fight back.

There is no furthest left about it.

I went to Bernie ' s kickoff and was later speaking to neighbors including some a generation older than me. My biggest surprise was that what he spoke of sounded like Norman Rockwell America and FDR ( or maybe Eleanor). The reaction to my comment was basically agreement and people pointing out those words also describe the spirit of Vermont and to some degree New England.

Hearing him, which more will do if he becomes the nominee makes it harder to make him scary using a label he chose and can explain why. He is as scary as the many community dinners or harvest festivals that appear ihe fall in Vermont.

It has been interesting seeing some Clinton supporters attack not just Bernie Sanders and some of his supporters, but the state of Vermont and especially its largest city, Burlington. This shocked me as I certainly don't remember that happening in other races - no matter where the candidate was from.

However, thinking back to my reaction to his speech, I understand a little better. Sanders may have redefined a democratic socialism that is rooted in American congregationalism that, really is in the character of its roots. A Norman Rockwell America that includes the diverse culture we have into communities that care.

Bernie reclaims the best of what the American experiment was. If there are scary ads, they could easily backfire when heard against the reality of what Bernie is speaking of.

seem to lack that experience.

Here's another one to consider: "In the end, after exhausting all other alternatives, the Americans seem to usually do the right thing." - Winston Churchill.

We're still exhausting our alternatives, while creating new crises for ourselves. Sometimes, the process takes decades to unwind. It certainly is exhausting.

This seems to be my day for paraphrasing conservative liberals. Or, were they liberal Conservative? Both should be familiar to you.

the have nots will out number the haves.
No matter their affiliation.

Clinton experienced a rise in approval in the 2008 primaries when it became more likely that Obama would win the nomination and Republicans switched to attacking Obama instead of Clinton.

makes me look like a fool for supporting him.

Berny's honesty and integrity out the window. Status quo, here I come.

I want to be like you. A winner!

Of the past? So then why do we even have a Democratic Party at all.
We could have just have two Republican Divisions you know like Republican Eastern Division and and Republican Lites Western Division.Each division could have billiosire sponsors and winning division takes all,both Congress and the White House. No need for elections then because Winner will be chosen by the winner Of the polls taken and the highest average wins.

Because the Democratic Party is owned by the same deep pockets.
The difference is one party is playing on a little bit different stage.
FDR could not win the nomination today if he was running on the Democratic ticket if what you say is true but it is not.

We would not have Medicare,Medicaid,Social Security, School lunch programs,Free Radio broadcasts,Free TV,and we would be paying tolls to travel on all of our highways if not for Socialist style government......and the list goes on...

Did I mention college tuition would be about 5 times higher at public universities also

I was referring to the Democratic Socialists of the Past whether they referred to themselves as such or not.

Democrats before the Democratic Party Sold out to the Corporate mafia.

Or are you going to pretend they're done with that?

Generally, negative ads fail because the candidate has a high enough favorability to absorb the hit. Clinton's favorability is already bad. So knocking her favorability down another 10 points is disastrous instead of inconsequential.

And then she'll desperately try to fight off the socialist label. Thus confirming it in the eyes of the right, and alienating the left.

Not to mention, it isn't 1962 anymore. "Socialist" does not carry the weight it once did.

What "didn't work" is firmly attaching the label did not harm him in the election - the people who would vote against someone just because "Socialist!!!!!!" were already not going to vote for Obama for plenty of other reasons.

We aren't a country with a large, mushy middle. We haven't been for 30 years, once the southern realignment completed. Instead, we have two big 'bumps' in the left-right distribution of the country. The right bump will either vote Republican or stay home. The left bump will either vote Democratic or stay home.

"Socialist!!!!!!" doesn't make the left bump stay home. And the right bump isn't voting for the Democrat anyway.

"No! I'm not a socialist!!! Those people are awful!! I'm a moderate!!" makes the left bump stay home - after all, that was our 2010 and 2014 strategy. And the right bump isn't voting for the Democrat anyway.

Instead, they are part of the left bump or the right bump. They refuse the party label because they are not attached to the party. They are also the ones most likely stay home if their "bump" is not supported.

The left-leaning indies/moderates don't care about "Socialist!!!!!!!!". The right-leaning indies/moderates might. But the right-leaning indies/moderates will not be voting for the Democratic candidate no matter what. They will either vote Republican or stay home.

Fighting against "Socialist!!!!!" gets you no votes - you make the left bump stay home, and gain nothing on the right bump.

Hate to break this to you but socialism isn't very popular in this country.

So there's nothing lost to a Democratic candidate.

Might wanna actually read up on what they're finding about political attitudes in this country, and how they've shifted over the last few decades.

It'll stop you from continuing to fight for 1980s campaign tactics that failed in 2000, 2004, 2010, partially in 2012 and 2014.

Explain to us all right here and right now what you dislike in Bernie. Please go for it.
I'm calling you out to do so. Put up or shut up. You've never said what you exactly disagree with and instead of taken the position of "he's not Hillary!". So please tell us, where you differ in terms of policy than his stances because we're all waiting.

Floor's yours. Let's hear it.

Ya all that money he wants to spend while saving us trillions.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-friedman/the-wall-street-journal-k_b_8143062.html

There are a lot of people who I like, but can't win a presidential election.

Honestly, what makes you think he can't win a general when he's drawing Republican supporters and indy voters, something Hillary isn't doing. His reach is much further. Remember the indy voting block is the largest in America. He was elected to the senate in his second term with 71% of the vote and many Republicans and indy's supported him. That will translate to the national stage once the debates begin and people get to know him.

In fact there's a gigantic reddit subform called "Republicans For Sanders" https://www.reddit.com/r/RepublicansForSanders/ Still think he can't win a general? All you're seeing is the Dem vote, take a look at other voting blocks and now you know exactly how he's going to.

You're argument is the exact same one made against Obama in 2007.
We saw how that went.

anyone who's won any major election outside of a few very liberal states. He doesn't have fundraising capacity. He's not particularly charismatic. I don't see him drawing many Indy voters and even less Rep voters. Particularly after the GOP starts their attack ads. Here on DU, any slightly negative word about Bernie is heresy. In the real world, it won't be like that. And his wins in Vermont don't mean much nationally.

I don't find the comparison to Obama remotely valid. In fact, I supported Obama from early 2007 in part because I thought he was the most electable. He was young, charismatic, great speaker. His politics were progressive but not as far left as Bernie. Obama also had huge fundraising capacity from the beginning, and was already a rising star thanks to the 2004 speech.

as more people here his message.

and that will hurt him. Bankruptcy act, anyone?

... that one of Biden's top advisers was talking on his phone in the cafe car of an Acela train and was overheard saying that "Joe is now 100% in" and would be announcing his candidacy "in the first week of October."

It's a rumor, so take it with a grain (or many grains) of salt, but I read this over 10 days ago and to me it's looking credible. Personally, I think I'd rather he didn't run. I'm a Bernie supporter and I think all this Biden stuff is muddying the waters. But who knows what the impact will be? I just wish he'd make the decision one way or the other so we can define the variable, so to speak.

I searched for it later and couldn't find it to save my life.

I'll be happy to see him run. I just wish he'd announce one way or another and get it over with.

I hasten to add: I don't read TNR--the story came up there when I did a Google search. I had the quote wrong, too, by the way. It was "I am 100% that Joe is in."

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/424209/joe-biden-josh-alcorn

Hey, if you recall what's in the Brit tabloid and it's good, lemme know.

They know what the Attorney General knows.

Early in his career, so he may be able to spin it as "evolving", but it's not helpful.

... the more they will tune him out, when they find out he's largely responsible for them not being able to have the option to declare bankruptcy on their HUGE college debts that not cumulatively is larger than Americans' credit card debt.

NOT a winning ticket with the younger generation that Bernie would be.

Excepting Carson and Biden vs Trump (Which plays into the hot hand theory of candidate popularity.).

Honestly, what Quinnipac is really saying is that the election is a toss up no matter the Democratic or Republican candidate. That is probably the only valid conclusion at this point in the game.

Carson v. Sanders. Some of it is good news for Democrats; some of it not so much.

And my conclusion holds. Outside of the hot hand effect, Quinnipac is calling the race too close to call. Considering we don't have candidates yet, that is not a surprising conclusion to reach.

If he somehow miraculously does become the Dem front runner then the barrage will begin and his numbers will plummet... guaranteed.

By the time he gets the nomination, the worst will have been handled.

Bernie has seen nothing yet. He has no idea what is coming if he becomes the nominee.

and associated with the likes of Hugo Chavez and Jeremy Corbyn?

Much like they did to Barack Obama.. Rev Wright, Tony Rezko, William Ayres, etc. It didn't work back then but candidate Obama was a much stronger candidate and campaigner than Bernie will ever be.

we've already seen that, Bob. Rape fantasies; child born out of wedlock; blahblahblah. What other "dirt" do you think is out there?

Hillary is not ahead.

Especially in the head to head POC numbers, also the favorable numbers.

Have a look at the Sanders V Carson.

More interesting minutiae:
Among Blacks
Clinton beats Bush 80 to 11
Sanders beats Bush 82 to 9
Sanders beats Carson 65 to 26
Sanders beats Fiorina 80 to 10
Sanders beats Trump 75 to 15

and...

Previous Quinnipiac (end of Aug) had Clinton 45/Sanders 22
New Quinnipiac: Clinton 43/Sanders 25
These changes are probably near or within the MoE, but RCP composite spread falls again to +14.7 Clinton
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

then we are done for.

but, of course, this type of poll on the general election is meaningless this early.

Why don't we say that the margin difference between Hillary and Bernie is a "statistical tie" regarding their lead over Republicans?

Statistical tie is only a thing depending on which way the wind blows.

All the polls can do is show us who is ahead now, if we held the election today. But they are in no way predictive of what will happen a year from now.

Polls 6 months from now could show an entirely different picture of how the election could go, and they will continue to change as events change.

Vote with your conscience for the primary, vote for the person who best matches your values and ideals. Voting "to win" is a gamble without any guarantee of working.

the supporters of one candidate in particular are making "because our candidate is the only one who can win in the general" as one of the few, core arguments in favor of that candidate, it becomes relevant.

But remember, Hillary's expert political reflexes will allow her to easily handle all scandals, as demonstrated by the masterful way she deflected media questions about her email server with lame snapchat jokes and 'what, with a cloth'

-- the GE hasn't started yet.
-- we have no idea who the GOP nominee is going to be so the Clinton campaign can't focus on a strategy yet.
-- the GOP candidates are all simultaneously attacking Clinton.
-- the RW media trashes Clinton non-stop 7 by 24.
-- the angry left trashes Clinton.. but maybe only 6 by 24.

Given all that she still leads all Dem contenders comfortably and in most polls leads the GOP contenders.. this one is more of an exception. I think she is still unbeatable.

I don't think the "trashing" of any Democratic candidate will stop or decrease after the primaries.

The GOP is focusing on Clinton the most because they think Clinton will be the nominee.

The left is criticizing Clinton because we disagree with them.

The polls are all over the place at this point and Hillary is trashing, criticizing, (take your pick) some of them as a strategy because they think[ he or she might be the candidate.

I think she is on a downward slide against her Democratic opponents and her possible Republican opponents.

And, I think it's going to get worse.

If he were to win the primary and the Republicans turn their guns on him... numbers will go down.