Bernie getting blasted left right and center by the media and republicans and still thriving would be the only way to convince me. What's the worst thing lobbed at Sanders in the last month (Other than data gate which his campaign caused itself)? That would be Trump saying Sanders is gonna take golf away. F'ing golf. That's the worst thing he's had said about him. If that isn't a case of Pugs keeping their powder dry until the general in hopes of Bernie being the nominee I don't know what is. A 3 year old blind kid could see what Republicans are doing at this point.

Surrogates have rotated through a series of talking points, and none of them have been enough to kill his candidacy. If the Clinton campaign can't manage it in the next few weeks, I don't see the GOP doing it.

The reliance on these polls by Sanders supporters amuse me. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/harrys-guide-to-2016-election-polls/

I trust Nate Silver as to whether these hypo match up polls are meaningful. These polls are worthless and no one should base their decision to vote for a candidate on these polls.

If you want to make an argument as to Sander being electable, then explain how he can win in the general election without a super pac. Some candidates are better able to raise the funds necessary to complete. President Obama blew everyone away in 2008 with his small donor fundraising efforts and that made it clear that he was electable.

There are many on this board who doubt that Sanders will be able to compete in a general election contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate will likely spend another billion. This article had a very interesting quote about the role of super pacs in the upcoming election http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/03/bernie-sanders-grassroots-movement-gains-clinton-machine

keep creeping upwards. Romney's loss in 2012 is a strong indication that it's not just about the money. If Bernie takes the nomination, it will be because his campaign has found a way to be successful without the megatons of money the pundits swear is necessary to victory. If he can win the nomination, he can win in November.

"I was told Bernie couldn't win primaries without a superPAC, either, yet his numbers keep creeping upwards. "

Care to back that up?

Unless you mean creeping upwards so slowly it won't matter.

Or even October in Iowa.

Fast forward to Jan 2016. He's in a statistical tie with HRC. And He is now expected to win Iowa. Was anyone saying that in October?

But then again, some people only like selective polling that suits their whatever.

It's outdated.

Three pols show it as a statistical tie with Clinton having a slight lead

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-3195.html

Clinton average of 3 polls is 46.67 and Sanders at 45.33

It's not JUST about the money, but no candidate can win WITHOUT the money. I don't think Romney could have won even with double the money - because Romney was a shitty businessman, a worse governor and a disaster of a candidate.

In the current political climate, status quo candidates are at a disadvantage, which means they'll need more money. Basically, lipstick is expensive, and "status quo" is the pig du jour.

...If they showed HRC winning in the head-to-heads, but showed Bernie running fifteen points behind?

To a certain group here polls are gospel if they favor HRC, regardless of how realistic the sample population is, but are completely worthless if they happen to favor Bernie.

If Sanders wants to be the nominee, he needs to broaden his appeal beyond the rather narrow demographic base currently supporting him.

Poc, from everything I'm seeing, are quickly realizing that HRC has done nothing to actually deserve their support, and isn't even more electable than Bernie.

That's why we are seeing more AA endorsements of Bernie every day.

South Carolina will be a great test for your theory as well the Super Tuesday states

The case for Hillary Clinton being electable does not depend on worthless hypothetical match polls but on her resume and record. Hillary Clinton has a clear record and has the ability to raise the funds necessary to compete against the Kochs and the RNC. No Clinton supporter is citing silly and worthless match polls to justify her electablity.

The fact that these polls are all that the Sanders campaign has to show electablity is rather amusing. Sanders is not doing well in the states with less than 90% white only voters because he has not shown that he is electable.

When citizens are aware money is spent so heavily to buy their government, those receiving it are tainted by the big money and their association with the oligarchic donors. This is happening to Hillary more and more each day, whereas Bernie's ability to attract small donations from so many of us is increasing our faith that if we the people give a little and vote on the issues Bernie will win. No mater what anyone says money does not vote in a general election regardless of its purchase of much of Congress. While the supreme court may call money being spent in huge sums free speech we can just reject that voice knowing the purpose is to rob us and our family today and in the future. Go Bernie. Make the rich pay. Hillary will not.

I live in the real world where negative ads work and money is critical to a campaign

will continue to come in. Much of his support is in the form of volunteers who also share a dream. You can't put a price tag on that no matter how pessimistic or superior one feels. And that is catching on and momentum builds more quickly the faster it moves. At some point, it becomes geometric.

I remember JFK and the emotion and incredible burst at the first televised debate. We sat glued to the tv. No one could have prepared us for that moment, but it was like nothing we had ever experienced. I'm not comparing Bernie to JFK...or anyone, for that matter. He's himself...pretty much the same through his life. And strangely enough, kind of stumbled into this position. That's often the sign of a time who called forth a wo/man rather than the reverse.

You may live in an old world, my friend. I hope so...no offense intended.

They can be way out. Pollsters said the 1992 UK General Election would be won by Labour, and that the 2015 Election would result in a hung parliament. The Tories won both elections. The only polls that matter are the ones conducted inside the ballot box.

beating Hillary in the polls would.

...when his performance to date AND his financial resources AND his political support convinced me he had the strength to win the GE. Which States will Sanders win through Super Tuesday?

... that would convince me. Until then, my votes will go to Hillary ... she's the best and most qualified candidate to handle the job.

Right now, I do not believe that the nominee will be Sanders

How is someone who so royally fucked up on every foreign policy position she took qualified?

How is someone who believes in and takes money from the corporate status quo the best?

She's neither the best nor the most qualified.

I know more about the Middle East than her.

What will prove it to me, if he can win the dem primary. Like Obama, show me you can beat Clinton in a primary. When Obama did that in such a brilliant manner it became clear. At this point I see nothing that tells me Sanders can do that. Considering Sanders can't even get much support from his own colleagues, I doubt he we garner much more support than he has. That has shown in many polls over the last six weeks or more.

and he weathers it, then I will take the polls seriously that say which D candidate can beat the R's.

And this is an important question to me, because my only criteria for which of Bernie or Hillary I am voting for is who is best positioned to beat whichever craphead the Republicans put up. So I actually do hope Bernie wins some early primaries.

The head of the super pac supporting Sanders is not as credible on the issue of the relevance of hypothetical match up polls at this stage of the race compared to Nate.

Nate's analysis makes sense in that according to other Sanders supporters, there is a media blackout on Sanders and he has not received any press scrutiny. The hypothetical match up polls cited in the OP are before the GOP and the Kochs attack Sanders with $300 million of negative ads on such matters as socialism and the costs of his programs. Hillary Clinton has been subject to media scrutiny for decades and is still polling well. I personally believe that Sanders would not stand up well to the scrutiny that would aimed at Sanders if he was the nominee.

Vote for the candidate of your choice but do not expect other Democratic voters to change their votes on the basis of worthless hypothetical match up polls.

It must be sad to have no response to the simple question as to how is Sanders electable other than this silly but sad answer. It is too bad that Sanders will have no chance of winning the vote of Democrats who have questions as to whether Sanders is electable.

I am glad that you are admitting that Sanders is not electable and the Democratic voters who have questions about Sanders' electablity should vote for Hillary Clinton

Have you thanked DWS yet for what she said re: Bernie?

Say "HI" and tell her "thanks".

Some haven't been burned (yet) by the status quo.

Some just want a female prez sooooo badly.

....so the talking points Bernie supporters attempt to promote with regards to Polls is all over the place.

Second, polls today do not reflect the attack dogs that are waiting in the wings should Bernie actually have any snowballs chance of winning the Primary.

As we all know, polls are a picture of the moment. At one time Bernie was at 2% and no one had heard his name. Should we have used those polls? But now we are to presume that his trajectory would not be affected by the Republican propaganda machine once that smear campaign is invoked? Hillary has been vetted for 20 years and with her consistent poll numbers (which is where the telling is imho) is still the strongest candidate out there. Bernie's numbers would very likley plummet as soon as any of the Republicans start their drive against Bernie. Bernie could never survive their onslaught. He is being treated with relative kid gloves in the hope that he does make it. It's the Republican dream to have Bernie in the GE.

In order to keep Bernie viable and with a voice in the Senate, you and your compadres should be hoping that Bernie stays out of the Republican radar.

He might win. And he might not. National polls at this stage mean nothing.

Here's why he might win:
1. He comes over as very sincere
2. He appeals to younger voters and disaffected voters.
3. His proposals are actually quite popular with the majority of American voters.
4. Demographics favor the Democratic candidate.

Here's why he might lose:
1. His refusal to have super-PACS puts him at a disadvantage.
2. The word "socialism" is toxic in American politics. Although his proposals might in theory be appealing to lots of Americans, most people actually don't vote on the issues, and once those issues are clothed in a red dress with the word "socialism" embroidered on it, lots of people will get scared.
3. He is largely unvetted as far as personal life story goes. (In contrast to Hillary who is probably as low in public opinion polls as she can go, Bernie can only go lower once the attacks start).
4. He does not seem to appeal to minority voters, and they are key to a Democratic victory.
5. He does not have strong roots in the Democratic Party.

In short, he would probably be more of a gamble than Hillary. She's a gamble too, but I think perhaps less so, given the fact that she is already largely vetted, has a strong election machine, tons of money, and would make the mushy middle a bit less scared. Of course, she has gender and likeability against her, but gender can also count in her favor, and likeability can be balanced out if the GOP candidate is even less likeable (which seems quite likely).

Either way, polls at this time do not really tell us much.

Vote for me!

If we have a midterm election type of turnout, we'll lose. That's my concern about Hillary.

Even when he wins they won't accept it.

These polls are worthless because Sanders has not been vetted by the media http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/first-read-three-weeks-go-three-margin-error-races-n493946

I am trying to find out now what the number is.

He cant win the nomination without that vote.

Bernie is gaining in the AA community..

And there is no good reason for anybody to be trying to keep AA's backing HRC, because the least-progressive candidate in the race can't be a fighter for AA rights. Centrists never get off the fence on race.

...the Republicans and Media will scorch the earth with dirt. Nobody should believe anything is going to be easy, even if the Republicans pick some idiot - and how can they miss?

if polls that favor Hillary are meaningless, then polls that favor Sanders are meaningless too. Fair is fair, after all. But then again I haven't felt the "bern", and judging by the fanatical and militant tone of so many of his supporters on this site, I likely never will. They seem like the polar opposite of Trump supporters. This is not my opinion of Sanders...merely the impression I get from many of his followers.

Dana Milbank has some good comments on general election match up polls https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-would-be-insane-to-nominate-bernie-sanders/2016/01/26/0590e624-c472-11e5-a4aa-f25866ba0dc6_story.html?hpid=hp_opinions-for-wide-side_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

It just hasn't happened and there have been hundreds of ops from Sanders supporters stating just that. He hasn't been vetted.