Liberals and progressives have no place anymore in Democratic party.it's just a centrist party now.

Well why do those who call themselves "very liberal" essentially split there votes between Bernie and Hillary?

People can claim that all they want.doesn't make it true.

Hillary is not liberal, not populist.

A betrayal by any name is still a stab in the back.

Who are the other people in your "us?" It's probably best to speak just for yourself, generally.

According to the polls

The far right is employing that strategy, and look at what's going on in the House

there is 50/50 chance the senate stays gop.

there are plenty of reasons why republican or Clinton country gets screwed regardless.

which would you rather have?

so will everyone else on social safety net

wall street will be happy regardless.so will neocons.

and trump is more likely to be president than Rubio.

Seems like revolt in republican party will succeed while attempted revolt in Democratic party failed.

many dems are happy with staus quo.

with the centrist democrat = republican idea

But we don't like your candidate and on that we get to vote!



She and her candidates are the same, imo.

But rock on

That debate performance kicked a**!!

Cheney was a decent man. nt

of course - corporations ARE people, so this is no doubt a good thing. LOL.... go back and watch Obama's campaign rhetoric from '08. Then compare his deeds to his talk. And so I'm to believe what the anointed has to spew? I'm no genius, but I AM smarter than that.

It's either far-right or centrist-right. Most likely the next president will be far-right.

1:This is democracy
2:There is any place for liberals and progressives In Democratic party

Some are totally ok with words President Trump.

and the NH primary election is is more than three months away. Instead of moaning about it and seemingly giving up--you should be fighting harder than ever to win. I'm sure that is what Bernie and most of his supporters are doing.

nor does it matter what any liberals and progressive think.Polls are proving that.

Polls are showing best cahnce to make some ground for bernie failed meserably and majority of dems want to vote for Clinton
nomatter what.

I least the truth is out no about what democratic party and majority of voters truly believe in and it's nothing liberal or progressive.

Gee, what sour pusses. Don't get your way, so take your marbles and scatter them noisily.

This person has already chosen to shit all over people who don't agree with their choice by calling them not progressive or far right? You don't generally win back people with that opening tactic.

Everyone knows that Sanders won the debate. Or, maybe not, as we're seeing from post-debate scientific polling.

notion that Clinton won the debate, then I will believe the science behind the polls. They have soiled the sample by declaring and driving the point that Hillary was the unquestionable winner. All they have succeeded in is proving that perception is reality - facts be damned - and that the mainstream media are still influential enough to sway perception, and, therefore, create reality.

So, what influences public opinion? That's a separate question. Yes, media coverage of debates has a great influence on opinion, since the vast majority of people did not see the debates, and a vast majority of voters won't see any of the primary debates. So, they watch the nightly news on whatever network they follow and read the newspapers. Or they see commentary on the debates elsewhere?

That's been the pattern all along, since those debates were first televised. Now, more people watch the debates during the General Election, but it's never a majority of voters who sees them.

Of course the media coverage affects public opinion. Public opinion is what determines the winner on Election day, too. Media coverage, advertising, public appearances, debates. All play into the formation of public opinion. That's how it works, since the last half of the last century. When the first JFK/Nixon debate was televised, it changed the way we elect our leaders. Today, debates and analysis of debates plays an important role in influencing voters. Only advertising plays a larger role.

Is that a good thing? Probably not, but it is how it works.

that came down with a case of Stockholm Syndrome during the debate.

They know a winner when they see one. Sorry, no mass psychological disorders for you to blame for Bernie's fail.

chances just went up for president Trump.

The first one gave Hillary Clinton some excellent results.

more robust public airing. Hillary's "win" doesn't change that but for the most cynical and politically calculating.

the best debater to increase the lead. And there it is. Frankly, televised debates are not about policy or positions. They are about presentation, really. The person who makes the best impression overall generally comes out ahead. That's the reality of televised debates, but many people don't recognize that. Some think that it's what is said, instead of how it is said. That's just not true, when it comes to influencing public opinion, as we've seen again and again.

I do believe the far left doesn't represent most of the Democratic party either.

But before I am the recipient of the inevitable pile on, I will say that the extremes in either party has an impact on the direction of the party.

For those up thread stating they have no place, they couldn't be more wrong. I think the key to winning the WH doesn't lie in the far left (or far right). They simply don't represent enough of the voting constituency, whome I belive to be more centrist and are frightened off by anyone seeming to represent the extremes.

Liberals hve no influence In democratic party.once primarys are over you will never hear anything progressive out of clinton again.

Obama sold out every union that worked to elect him on TPP.

Liberals are ilrelvent in democratic party now.

you can play the defeatist card simply because you don't feel like the relevancy exists outside of the Whitehouse, but you are very very wrong on this.

I work in government and I see the pendulum swing all the time...and that pendulum is not moved by a centrist, it's moved by the more extreme left or right attemting to make policy change.

The far left liberals play a role, an important role, I just do not belive they are electable because the larger mainstream constituency doesn't want any extreme to govern such a diverse nation. The ones elected find a way to implement the policy driven and presented by those with a passion for their beliefs. I believe in this very strongly.

the democratic party only cares about centrist goals now.

and the ebb and flow of the desires of the population.

It will last as long as primarys are over then back to being centrist.of course it seems the democratic party is centrist too.her support proves that.

Bernie is the one that maybe inadvertantly dismantles the party, with a little help from "within".

Haters are.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

/ Believe me. Democrats have become far more doctrinaire over the last 20 years. Not as bad as the GOP/teabaggers have on the other side, but still - it's obvious.

// Hillary is liberal. So is Obama. Bernie backs drones - which is good, as appeasement of extremists never works

And apparently they do have influence because Hillary is winning.

anyone left or progressive.we are all entreme to new democratic or Clinton party.

it's subjective. I can speak for what I personally believe, which may be very different from what Cruz thinks is far Left, or even another Dem may feel is far Left. I can react and use the infor gleaned from those claiming Hillary or Obama are not left enough. I can react to those claiming I'm personally not progressive enough, I can use the information that so may here pat themselves on the back for dragging Hillary left on some policies because of the far left, I can employ all sort of input to make my determination. I've been told Bernie is w-a-y further Left that Hillary....I interpret and make that determination on all sorts of unput.

Do you have a definition to offer that I can also use?

The same traditional Democratic values that Hillary now claims to embrace. Yes, we have talked a lot about it on DU. the reason people like Sanders are perceived as far left is because the Democratic party has shifted significantly to the right. So today's far-leftist is yesterday's garden variety Democratic voter.

you are determined to be oppositional.

have a good day.

this is a discussion board. If you don't care to discuss your thoughts, then perhaps you can keep them to yourself.

online polls are sacrosanct!

.../ sarcasm <--- cause this is needed around here

Sid

That explains why 66% of moderate, left of center Dems like HRC in this poll.

especially considering that among younger voters Bernie only leads Hillary by 7-points--so I think there are a lot of younger voters who favor her, too. Also you make a point that 66% of left of center dems like HRC, but how do you explain that among "very liberal" people Hillary and Bernie are in a virtual tie? I hate to tell you this but in November of 2016 if Bernie were the nominee he would need more than "liberal" or "extreme liberals" to win and he would need more than younger people. At least people over 50 vote regularly even in off-year elections.

Per the article's claim, she's up 50/24 with seniors. Also per their questionnaire, "Would you describe yourself as very liberal,
somewhat liberal, moderate, somewhat
conservative, or very conservative?"

34% Somewhat Liberal (left of center)

32% Moderate

How exactly is my comment condescending? Seniors loved Hillary Clinton back in 08. Assuming that they're still around they'll vote for HRC again. If anything HRC should be focusing on the millennial vote. 66% of people under age 30 helped put Obama over the top in '08. Right now Bernie has the slight edge on that age group. If he gets bumped off those votes go with him since millennials won't vote unless Clinton gives them a reason to vote for her. One demo graph isn't gonna cut it.

I thought Bernie had NH locked up?

This is great news.

It could very well be widely skewed and invalid, but if these are the "official" poll results we keep getting what is to stop them from validating them by stealing votes at the ballot box? Indeed, why wouldn't the corporate entities steal votes if the polling methodology is heavily skewed and in error to the more conservative candidates? Surely, they're aware of this fact. So many elections come gift-wrapped with a tag screaming: "Steal Me".

We simply have to fight to get paper ballots back. Our election system is completely broken and corrupt.

Paper ballots and a secure and monitored election voting system would prevent skewed polling methodologies from mattering. We don't have a secure election system so corrupted polling methodologies could easily be the precursor and set-up to election theft. Almost all of the "legitimate" and "scientific" polls rely heavily on landlines. That results in a heavily skewed population demographic, and it consolidates a demographic that will be much more conservative overall. Very convenient for the corrupted PTB.