MSNBC (Chris Hayes): Elizabeth Warren worried Bernie Sanders can't win a national election

[brooklynite]

Amazingly enough, the same thing Russ Feingold told me.

[leftofcool]

1. She should be because he can't

[roguevalley]

41. he will win. every poll against a pug shows it. If she endorses Clinton her cred

as an independent voice of reason and her legitimate integrity will be swallowed by the black hole of establishment slag.

[Rilgin]

47. Your certainty of this point is matched by our feelings about Hillary

You are convinced that Bernie can not win. Your arguments are arguments and address potential weaknesses in his candidacy. The republicans will certainly attack him from the right. The effect of the attacks are fatal but only in your opinion. As an opinion your opinion is valid. However, it is just opinion and argument not based on any concrete evidence. Many of us are equally convinced that Hillary can not win. The only difference between our 2 positions is that yours is totally speculative and based on an argument and there is real evidence to back the fact that Hillary can not win the GE. There is historical evidence backing the opinion that Hillary is absolutely unelectable.

The most consistent predictor of who will win the presidency is net favorable unfavorable numbers. The US does not ever elect people with unfavorable ratings. You probably know this already but want to ignore it since its one of those inconvenient truths about Hillary that supporters have to ignore to support her. The only thing that could save her is if the Republicans put up a candidate with equal net negatives (possibly Trump) in which case we will have a bad election. However in that case, your argument will not hold water as Bernie would also win against such a Republican. However, the main point is that you are supporting a candidate that can not win if you look at the most consistent historical predictor of victory.

The Second point which you know about Hillary is she already was rejected in 2008 by the Democratic Party in an election that was absolutely hers to win. Not every individual democrat rejected her but the democratic party who should have shooed her in did not want her. That continues in this election year with increased resistance to her candidacy. Not from you but you must see it surrounding you from others in the democratic party. The fact that you see so many groups rejecting her forcefully rather than coalescing behind her or at least being neutral should tell you that her Democratic support will be tepid at best. Again, we have direct evidence that she is not a perfect fit to excite democratic voters without even talking about independents and republicans.

So to my mind, you are arguing speculative electability against Bernie while supporting a candidate that on the basis of actual evidence has absolute elect ability problems.

[Duval]

64. Very well said, Rilgin.

[Uncle Joe]

66. Well said, Rilgin.

[dae]

79. I agree with everything you discussed but

I am concerned about DWS/DNC manipulation of the process and just how bad will Bernie have to win the primaries to overcome HRC's Super Delegates?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

116. The peer reviewed research

The peer reviewed research suggests "Simple surveys that ask people who they expect to win are among the most
accurate methods for forecasting U.S. presidential elections."

Theory

Simple surveys that ask people who they expect to win are among the most
accurate methods for forecasting U.S. presidential elections


pg. 1

http://tinyurl.com/p9rdflr

Evidence


Expectations are less settled for the general election in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates. In an open-ended question asking all Americans whom they expect to win the presidency in November 2016, 37 percent pick Clinton, more than name any other candidate; next is Donald Trump, tipped to win by 20 percent. Boosted by Clinton’s score, 48 percent pick any Democrat, while 37 percent pick one of nine Republicans.






http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-rebounds-democratic-race-gaining-sanders-biden-alike/story?id=34580456

Theory

Studies of prediction market accuracy for election forecasting commonly compare the
daily market forecasts to results from polls published the same day. These studies generally find
that prediction markets yield more accurate forecasts than single polls.


http://tinyurl.com/p9rdflr

Evidence

http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016president

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/winner

Even if we embrace your subjective and speculative argument that favorability ratings are determinative Hillary has better favorable ratings than all her presumptive GOP challengers, especially the front runners, ergo:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/13/poll-views-of-trump-carson-and-bush-dim-as-christie-and-cruz-rise/

[Rilgin]

121. You are confused

Early stage polling of who we think will win has little predictive value. It just gives you the early front runner like Guiliani or Cuomo or Clinton in 2008. No one at this stage would have predicted Reagen Bush or Obama if you asked who you expected to win. .

On the other hand, early stage (January - June) net favorability between candidates is reasonably correlated with the ultimate victory. Please note that I said correlate both here and in my early post.

The candidate with the better net-favorable rating in the early-going (january - june) won the election in 1976, 1980, 1984, 1996, and 2008.

1998 would seem to be an outside the parameters but it was also the election with Ross Perot affecting the election. Bill did not get a majority of the vote in the States. Bill also had early specific scandal hits to his favorability which he somehow overcame. His unfavorable ratings were not locked in by long term knowledge of him as a public figure.

Kerry and Bush had nearly identical early stage favorability ratings. Obama had a massive favorability lead early against Romney but by the election they were both about net 0.

Of course late stage polling will always be better on almost all terms but favorability at this stage is clearly a better early stage factor to look at if you wanted to predict the future. Late stage polling would clearly be better for the electability issue but we do not have any late stage data now. And what we do have is net favorability which has historical correlation with victory.

Obviously favorability can and will fluctuate. Like everything else it is not static. However, we have a lot of data with Clinton. Her favorable unfavorable ratings have been on a general downward slope since 2013. She is very well known and people have long term opinions of her. It will be difficult to really move her numbers. Further, note that her numbers are worse then in 2008.

Her only real hope is that the Republicans put up a less palatable candidate. If your issue is electability, do you really want to rely on this to keep the presidency. She is not a good candidate and risks the presidency. It is unforgivable that she allowed her ambition to risk this and used power politics to keep others out of the race.

I dont expect much but it would be nice if you would even acknowledge that Clinton has her own electability problems.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

123. To simplify things I will just use your benchmark

To simplify things I will ignore the peer reviwed research and just use your benchmark, ergo:

The most consistent predictor of who will win the presidency is net favorable unfavorable numbers.

-Rilgin

The three most likely Republican nominees for president in 2016 are Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz in that order, ergo:

http://predictwise.com/

All three of them have net favorable-unfavorable deficits larger than Secretary Clinton, with the GOP front runner having a much worse deficit than Secretary Clinton, ergo:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/13/poll-views-of-trump-carson-and-bush-dim-as-christie-and-cruz-rise/

I dont expect much but it would be nice if you would even acknowledge that Clinton has her own electability problems

-Rilgin

I will stipulate that Hillary Clinton has electability problems as do all candidates. But as I demonstrated she won't be running against herself.

[Rilgin]

125. But your claim is Bernie is unelectable

As you know comparing against these three, Bernie's net favorables are higher because Clintons are negative. Bernie has net positive favorable numbers. Your argument against Bernie holds no water with respect to net favorable/unfavorables. If you think Hillary is electable, Bernie is more electable.

If you look in my earlier posts I clearly allude to the one thing that might save her is if Republican's put up a worse candidate. However you want to bank on that. I do not. And understand AGAIN, that Bernie both polls better and has better net favorables against all three than Hillary. I am for what looks like the stronger candidate and I am leary of putting up a candidate with high unfavorables even if it looks like the Republicans might do so too. I have no idea how it will come out if 2 disliked candidates run against each other but I do not want to find out.

Morever, I do not think the Republican candidates are locked in like Hillary's seem to be. This is especially true of Rubio.

On the whole, Clinton is a horrible candidate. Bernie is not an ideal candidate because of all the things mentioned about him but she is a bad one. She has nothing going for her other than money. The more people see of her when she is in the public eye the higher the unfovorables go. She seems to stabilize when she is not running for things which should have been clear to her after 2008. She had a choice to sacrifice the democratic party for her ambition or to become a statewomen. Then we might have had other progressive candidates getting in without running into the power of the establishment.

But she made this choice and thats unforgivable because even a blind partisan should be able to see that her net unfavorables risk the election.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

127. Respectfully, you are moving the goalposts.

The most consistent predictor of who will win the presidency is net favorable unfavorable numbers.

-Rilgin

All three of the leading GOP nominees have net favorable-unfavorable deficits larger than Secretary Clinton, with the GOP front runner having a much larger deficit than Secretary Clinton, ergo:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/13/poll-views-of-trump-carson-and-bush-dim-as-christie-and-cruz-rise/




Did you or did you not say that the candidate with the largest favorable/unfavorable deficits loses the election?


and

Did I or did I not provide documentation for my assertion that the leading Republican candidates have larger favorable/unfavorable deficits than Secretary Clinton?

Thank you in advance.

[Rilgin]

130. No goalpost moving just 2 diffeent points in this thread addressed

The difficulty in responding to two posters with different aims and points. I posted a response to a claim by a poster who claimed as fact that Bernie could not win. His claim was Bernie was unelectable.

You seem to have jumped in after to claim that Hillary is more electable because people now think she is more likely to win. I actually did not look at the name on your post as it seemed to be saying basically the same thing by postulating a different factor to prove Hillary will (emphasis added) win based on who people expect to win. I addressed that point but thought you main point was the basic claim that Bernie can not win.

If your point is Hillary could win, I acknowledge it is possible. However, my opinion based on unfavorables is that Hillary is a bad candidate and that people supporting her because they have a speculative opinion based on no real evidence that Bernie can not win should look at unfavorables on who is better on that issue. I stand by that point.

My last post did not move the goalposts. It addresses the underlying theme that the person I originally responded to posited that Bernie can not win. My last post again addresses that point by simply asserting that 1) if the Republicans put up a candidate with long term net unfavorables equal to Hillary's I have no idea of what will happen because it has not happened in recent membemory and 2) that if Hillary could win against any such candidate Bernie could also win because his net favorables vs any candidate with worse unfavorables than Hillary (which is possible) will also be beaten by Bernie because he has net positive favorables.

I also acknowledge that on all cases, it is difficult to formulate a causal predictability from anything that is occurring this early in a campaign and the final results. However, early stage favorability generally correlates with long term elect-ability.

If you look at the candidates against each other, victory correlates pretty well with better early stage favorability. We do not actually know who the Republican candidate will be yet. We could get lucky but I would not count on it. They may actually be able to dispose of Trump and end up with Rubio or Kasich or a brokered convention in which case, they will not pick a candidate with high unfavorables and it will be unlikely that Hillary could win.

[Dawson Leery]

2. Come and help us get Hillary into the Whitehouse.

Elizabeth and Hillary worked together to help single parents avoid the pitfalls of bankruptcy.

[cherokeeprogressive]

69. White. House. Two words.

[Feeling the Bern]

82. The DUer meant Sheldon Whitehouse. It's his birthday and we want to get in good with the Whitehouse

[Hoyt]

3. Someone finally talking sense. I am really sorry it's that way, but it is.

[daleanime]

4. Then we're screwed.....

because no one else is willing to do what must be done, but you're OK with that so have a lovely evening.

[Metric System]

8. Jesus, some of you sound like you're storming the Bastille.

[notadmblnd]

10. Hyperbole much?

[daleanime]

11. Ah, the re-freshening sounds....

of belittling.

Look around and tell me this election is meaningless.

[snoringvoter]

21. Why does this spring into mind?

[cherokeeprogressive]

72. What would that sound like, exactly?

[Punkingal]

89. It may come to that someday, figuratively speaking, of course.

[anigbrowl]

134. They wish they were lol

Aux armes, citoyens!

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. Martin O'Malley will ...

and IMO, has a better shot of getting it done than the candidate with scant relationships in Congress. Relationships are important in politics ... and while many pride themselves in believing that we need to get anyway from politics, getting stuff done in politics, takes politics.

[Hoyt]

32. +1.

[BlueMTexpat]

103. +2

[floriduck]

88. How does a former governor establish more relationships in Congress

than an existing member (except Ted Cruz)?

[1StrongBlackMan]

110. The former Governor has a history of working in a divided government and getting things done ...

Face it, the Congressional endorsement count suggests, in terms of relationships, Bernie IS the Cruz in the Democratic race.

[Skwmom]

94. Yeah, those relationships have worked well for the American people.

Top on my list is not someone who can work with the crooks and sellouts in Washington.

[1StrongBlackMan]

111. Okay. eom.

[Ed Suspicious]

5. Well, they're wrong. I love them both. Russ was the first man I knocked on doors for, but he's

just wrong.

[Motown_Johnny]

6. The only female Senator to not endorse Hillary

Get the message?

[Metric System]

7. She's right. He can't. He's playing well to the far left in the base right now, but he'll be creamed

in the general. Unlike Hillary, he hasn't been constantly attacked by the Right. I would be very surprised if he could withstand the barrage of negative ads. He'll make Democrats look back favorably on the Mondale/Dukakis election outcomes.

[Cassiopeia]

60. He's playing very well to Independents as well

which is far more important in the GE.

[oasis]

87. Negative ads will drown him. Bernie will not have enough money

to answer the attacks. Warren see the handwriting on the wall.

[artislife]

96. Tell me again about her crossover appeal

....because I am not feeling "ready for hillary" at all.

[Little Star]

9. BINGO!!....

I've said this since day one. He wouldn't stand a chance in a national election. If he became our candidate we can kiss the general election away.

This play has two parts.

[WillyT]

12. I Wonder If Any Of Them Have Seen This... Pretty Much Doubt It...

DULink: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017320929

[SolutionisSolidarity]

13. She had her chance to do it and turned tail.

Hillary can't win so I'll take my chances with the candidate I believe in , not who I'm told America will vote for. They said Reagan couldn't win either, and he won so hard we've spent 40 years living in his shadow.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. She was a supply side economist and Republican for 35 years.

So this is not the first time she's been wrong.

[Depaysement]

15. Of course

Many said a black man could not be President. Two terms later . . .

A Brooklynite could not be Mayor of the City of New York. Here we are . . .

In fact, no one running in either party has ever won a national election, so . . . how do we know?

[Cassiopeia]

61. ^^ Exactly ^^

[Old Codger]

65. In 1960

They said a catholic couldn't be elected either... funny how that goes...

[Depaysement]

100. An obvious one

I completely left out.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

16. Disappointing if true. And I require a link for the Feingold statement before I'll believe it.

[brooklynite]

17. The "Feingold Statement" was what he told me personally...

...you can choose to believe it or not; I don't care.

[virtualobserver]

34. When did he tell you this?

[brooklynite]

35. I had dinner with him last year...

...check my FEC filings; I'm a supporter of his Senate campaign (amazing for a 1%er, huh?)

[virtualobserver]

37. I'm not questioning the veracity of your account

the timing is important....I doubt that anyone would have thought that last year.

His chances look better today.

[Vattel]

43. Exactly. Less than a year ago I posted that I didn't think Bernie could win in the GE.

I am much more sanguine about his chances now.

[Cassiopeia]

62. OOOOHHHHHHH

You really should have added this conversation happened last year. Would you care to expand on when last year?

[brooklynite]

73. September.

[Cassiopeia]

78. Thank you.

Maybe you could update your post for full disclosure?

[artislife]

97. Last year...before the yoooge crowds.

Before the Bern...

[Scootaloo]

52. Didn't you know? All the party figures have Brooklynite as a close confidant

And one and all, they support everything Brooklynite already believes. it's absolutely uncanny.

[brooklynite]

55. No, it's more -I- support the candidates who support what I do...

...that's why I cut off Mark Begich in 2014 for not supporting gun control, and Maggie Hassan for supporting a ban on Syrian refugees.

But if you don't believe me, point to any of the Senate candidates who've come out in support of Sanders...

It's absolutely uncanny.

[Scootaloo]

58. I love that. "I cut him off." Like he's your kid or something.

Tell me about how you taught Biden everything he knows.

[morningfog]

68. The self aggrandizing is embarrassing, and likely bullshit.

[cherokeeprogressive]

77. My guess is; it's the latter.

[Puglover]

131. Astronomically creepy

is how hits me. Just <shudder>.

True or not.

Really.

[zeemike]

86. I think it is more a feeling of ownership.

It is how the 1% feels about those not in their class who are in public service.

[randome]

113. Not everyone on DU is a cubicle-dweller.

Some are poor and some are rich.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[Puglover]

132. Of course.

Thankfully most of the folks that are rich don't write post after post subtly bragging about their wealth or constantly name drop notable figures that they are très intime with.

My Grandmother always called that sort of behavior "coarse".

I happen to agree with her. And find it a tad desperate.

YMMV or course.

[Dawson Leery]

91. I would not give a cent to Bernie.

In addition to his gun positions, he is for the farm bill.

We cannot afford another battle for healthcare. Enough capital was put in for the ACA. It was costly to say the least.

I am dead set against his health policy. It WILL not pass and will be held up by GOP Governors.

There are other things we need:

-Financial sector reform
-Highway funding
-foreign policy
-Controlling the cost of higher education
-Voter protection
-LGBT protection

[JonLeibowitz]

38. Even so (and I do believe you), one of the two gentleman was not re-elected.

Perhaps Bernie is a better politician than he gives him credit? We shall see. Clearly, if he can take on HRC and be successful against an overwhelming party favorite, he can handle the Repukes.

[earthside]

54. I don't believe it.

You are not exactly an unbiased or reliable source on anything that has to do with Mrs. Clinton.

[brooklynite]

56. Fair enough...

I don't care if you believe me. You can verify through my FEC filings that I'm a Feingold supporter (nb - also a Warren supporter in 2012). If you want to know what Feingold thinks, why don't you ask him yourself?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

19. Did anyone else see this on television, and can you confirm? Thank you.

[JI7]

20. Feingold said in 2008 he was going to support either Clinton or obama

He got a lot of hate from Edwards and kucinich crowd.

I can easily see him supporting Clinton .


But he is wrong about chances of sanders winning.

Both Clinton and Sanders have the same chance of Winning the ge. It will be a tough race for both.

[R B Garr]

22. I heard that, LOL! There it is.

And look at how he's handling explaining his policy proposals -- he's not forthcoming with numbers, one of the main obstacles to selling his socialist leanings, but he won't even tell you how much things are going to cost.

Good thinking on Warren's part.

[Dawson Leery]

28. Can you imagine Trump and Sanders in a debate?

Laugh or cry?

They will be falling over themselves and each other to explain their unworkable policies.

[R B Garr]

39. Yes! Exactly. They would be funny together.

They both like to call names, too. That would be entertaining. Donald has been calling him Crazy Bernie, but I bet he wouldn't stop there.

[roguevalley]

42. I wondered where all the HRC supporters went when Chelsea and HRC

stepped on their tongues the past two days. You all came here.

[Eric J in MN]

46. Was Chris Hayes describing a conversation he had with Elizabeth Warren?

A conversation with one of her friends?

Was he just speculating?

[JI7]

23. i think Warren wants to see Sanders win iowa and/or NH

Especially if he can win both she may endorse him after that.

I think she will only endorse Clinton if she ends up nominee but not while race is still competitive .

[Fawke Em]

24. Well, isn't that special?

[Eric J in MN]

25. Did Chris Hayes say she told him that? Or is this just a rumor he heard or his speculation? NT

NT

[draa]

44. It's horseshit and the OP knows it.

Also, name dropping Russ Feingold only impresses the easily impressed. Tacky as hell, too.

[Broward]

49. The OP seems very impressed with himself.

[Art_from_Ark]

57. I always imagine hearing his posts in a Thurston Howell the 3rd accent

"Lovey and I dined with a politician extraordinaire the other night and were more than happy to donate thousands to his campaign-- a mere drop in the bucket for us, right Lovey?"

[brooklynite]

109. Sort of sad that he has to rely on the likes of me, isn't it?

The Revolution™ seems to be able to fund Bernie Sanders' campaign; no $$ left over? IS Bernie supposed to do all the work himself?

[brooklynite]

112. Would you mind being clearer with your insults, so I can categorize them properly?

Are you disputing:

1. That Chris Hayes has a show on MSNBC?

2. The the reporting I cited didn't happen at 8:52 on last night's show?

3. That Russ Feingold is running for Senate?

4. That I'm supporting him?

5. That we had dinner?

[libdem4life]

118. It's the level of superiority and referring to personal wealth that matches a typical 1%er.

As an example, you dine with them, thus you know them better than those of us less well-placed who must rely on word of mouth or news or their actual online opinions and positions. Few 1%ers I have known, have a clue or care as to how they come off.

That's JMO, not an insult.

[stonecutter357]

26. K&R!

[baldguy]

27. And the Berniestas toss Warren under the bus in ... 3 ... 2 .....

[Dawson Leery]

30. They put Travon's mother under there.

Quite putrid.

[riversedge]

129. and Planned Parenthood

[JudyM]

29. Curious why she is saying this now. Nt

[JI7]

31. especially when polls show just the opposite

[JudyM]

33. Exactly.

[Empowerer]

36. Because she thinks it's true?

[RiverLover]

45. I haven't heard her say it, have you? Rumor has it.... /nt

[JudyM]

48. Good point.

[appalachiablue]

71. It's made up speculation. No more.

[JudyM]

119. More today...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511010066

[Skwmom]

95. Ask how it could benefit her? That's a safe bet with politicians. n/t

[JudyM]

114. Right... So what is your take on this?

[bkkyosemite]

40. If Elizabeth Warren is not endorsing anyone at this

time she should have said nothing. Bernie has momentum and that comment is an attempt (in my opinion) to discourage that support. Not happening.

[Autumn]

50. I think she's in for a pleasant surprise, however if democrats like

Feingold and Elizabeth get off their asses and busy and start pushing Bernie he certainly could win easier.

[Bernblu]

76. Yes, it would nice if some of these progressives put some skin in the game.

If they don't we will know when the time was ripe and the people really needed them they sat on their butts in fear.

Personally, if Bernie does not win, I am finished with the whole lot of them and I'm through with politics.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

51. Why would she be worried?

He's leading all Republicans

[John Poet]

53. I guess neither Elizabeth nor Russ have seen the latest

general election polls.

They should be more worried about Hillary being able to beat Republicans.

And they should be even MORE worried about down-ticket Democrats,
with Hillary as the nominee.

[Art_from_Ark]

59. If Hillary's theoretical "coattails" are anything like her husband's,

then there would be plenty to worry about with down-ticket Democrats.

[redstateblues]

81. All the down ballot Socialists

Will be swept into office on Bernie's coat tails

[Art_from_Ark]

83. Bernie will be running as a DEMOCRAT

And Bill's combined net results for 1992 and 1996, when he should have had coattails, were as follows:

House-- net loss of 7 seats
Senate-- net loss of 2 seats

And that's not including the disastrous election of 1994, when we lost both the House (for the first time in 40 years) and the Senate.

[Bernblu]

63. If Bernie can't win

then we are truly fu*ked because Hillary ain't winning.

[Bigredhunk]

67. Hmmm

I've always been a, "I'm for Bernie. When it's inevitably Hilary, then I'm for Hilary" - guy. Two thoughts:

1) Bernie becomes the nominee. His negatives aren't high right now because he hasn't been the focal point of attacks from the right. He hasn't been shat on for 25 years like Hilary has. He hasn't had faux & rw radio/talking heads spewing hatred and lies at him before. His negatives go up and he doesn't get as many I & R votes as it looked like he would've, and he loses.
2) Bernie becomes the nominee. He motivates progressives who've felt ignored for years. He gets more votes from I's & R's than Hilary would, and he wins.

[jhart3333]

75. I pick option 2

[Empowerer]

80. I pick Option 1, but don't necessarily agree with the outcome

I definitely think that one of the upsides of being ignored by the media so long is that he's been ignored by the media, i.e., he's escaped scrutiny. If he gets the nomination, the media - mainstream and right wing - are going after him hammer and tong and it won't be pretty. His negatives will definitely go up but how badly he's damaged will depend on how ready he is to handle it. If he handles it right, he can withstand it. If not, your scenario would surely play out.

[Larkspur]

70. Sen. Warren will not endorse before IA or NH

because the bulk of her supporters are backing Bernie and if she endorses HC, Warren will lose her national appeal and be called a sellout to Wall Street.

Sen. Warren can wait until the MA primary to make an endorsement, then this way she can say she supports the will of the people.

If she and Russ Feingold are worried that Bernie can't win the GE, they should also be worried that HC has a good chance of losing the WH too. She polls worse against Republicans than Bernie does.

[toshiba783]

74. that was a good segment

Was the statement made by him or one of the two female guests on the show? This is an absolute legitimate question regarding Sanders though - the media and the republicans have not directed the type of viscous negativity towards him that both Obama and Clinton have endured. Even simple criticism of Sanders is rare - he's totally untested.

Honestly, I think Hayes had some really fair, reality-based commentary about this race - both on his own show and then on Rachel's show after Clinton's interview.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

84. Unlike some Hillary supporters who giggle that he can't win.

[blackspade]

85. Link?

[madfloridian]

90. I have looked and looked for a source for that comment...can't find one. Do you have a link?

[madfloridian]

92. Again do you have a link for Warren's statement to Chris Hayes??

Can't find anything about it.

[Cassiopeia]

93. Neither could I.

Additionally, further up thread I learned this magical conversation with Feingold happened in September of last year. I asked if they would update the OP for full disclosure...... Betting that's not going to happen.

[Live and Learn]

98. Without a link, this post is suspect. nt

[madfloridian]

99. You need to produce a source for that comment by Warren. Can't find one anywhere.

Will check back in the morning.

[bowens43]

101. of course he can hillary however cannot. she will never be president. thank the gods.....

[NCTraveler]

102. EW is correct.

And I doubt this gets out unless EW wanted it to.

[MrMickeysMom]

104. You never seem to include the actual source because.. ahhmmmmm

It's not there.

It live under your hat. Here's your hat.

[brooklynite]

108. What part of "MSNBC (Chris Hayes)" was unclear to you?

And this is just a guess but 8:52 PM on last night's show.

[BlueMTexpat]

105. Under the bus for her, LOL!

Elizabeth Warren would already have endorsed Bernie if she really believed that he could win in the GE. JMO

[Autumn]

133. So why hasn't she endorsed Hillary

already if she really believes that he can't win in the GE?

[djean111]

106. Still supporting Bernie. And polls - which were being crammed down our throats last year

when Hillary was ahead - show Bernie will beat the GOP in the GE.

Looks like today will be "Authoritarian types telling us to support Hillary" day. Won't work.

[riversedge]

107. I am not surprised to hear that Russ Fiengold said the same. Thanks for the information.

[Dawson Leery]

128. +1

[MineralMan]

115. She's right to worry.

Realists worry about stuff like that when it comes to things like presidential elections.

[Gothmog]

117. I like Sanders but I do not think that he is viable

Sanders is a good man and I like many of positions. According to the online poll/quiz, I am closer to Sanders on my positions than to Clinton. However, I do not believe that he is viable in a general election contest where the GOP will be spending over a billion dollars

[Fearless]

120. I'll wait to hear that from her mouth.

[Sheepshank]

122. There are certainly good reasons to feel this way

from someone with the finger on the pulse of it all

[antigop]

124. Beware: Someone Is Trying to Convince You That Bernie Can't Win

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/12/15/beware-someone-trying-convince-you-bernie-cant-win

The theme is to desperately convince us that Sanders can’t win. They repeat it over and over, even though Sanders polls as well or better than Hillary Clinton does against every leading Republican candidate.

Behind this effort is an alarmed corporate old guard that still runs the Democratic Party establishment and their allies in the corporate think tanks and the media, with a special nod to NBC/MSNBC, which is owned and operated by General Electric and Comcast.

[Lil Missy]

126. She's right, he can't. People in the real world know that. n/t

[Thinkingabout]

135. I dont expect an endorsement from Elizabeth Warren until time for the

Massachusetts primary.