CNN poll pairs Clinton and Sanders against the three GOP rivals in November matchups

[Bucky]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/01/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-poll/index.html

Dems vs Trump:
Clinton 52 - Trump 44
Sanders 55- Trump 43

Dems vs Rubio:
Clinton 47 - Rubio 50
Sanders 53- Rubio 45

Dems vs Cruz:
Clinton 48 - Cruz 49
Sanders 57- Cruz 40



electability is everything

[highprincipleswork]

1. It's true that some have said that "electability is everything".

[Betty Karlson]

79. But somehow, they are all silent now.

I guess it was just one of those manufactured talking points?

[Baobab]

88. Another CRUCIAL reason we cannot elect HRC- A fraud on the whole country, which will cost 30 million

jobs.

The only way we can stop it is by not signing any of the three pending trade deals and not electing HRC, and then prosecuting them for a HUGE deception, which includes lying about health care - the real reason its so messed up is a 1990s trade deal, GATS, which explains everything, also GATS contained a huge jobs for market concession deal which has stalled because the US wasnt able to put the jobs on the table before (they have to be privatized and put into internatioal procurement system so that the developing countries can be the winning qualified low bidders) Now that system is almost ready to start up, India is readying a WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement on services, also there is TISA (outline below- recently declassified by the EU) Practically NO Americans know about it at all. The way we get out of it is- we have to show how its been hidden from us ALL. and that the previous three administrations all hid it's true nature from the country AND legislators (which is true)

Its a scheme to create a huge trade in jobs (Mode Four) for markets overseas..(Mode Three) as well as to create several unnecessary fake "crises" in health care, education, IT, and housing/energy by means of trade deals and deliberate ineptitude. (while pretending to argue to explain the gridlock)

---------CUT HERE------EU TISA "MANDATE"----DECLASSIFIED---NOT RESTRICTED--------



NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE AGREEMENT

On substance, the agreement should achieve essentially the same objectives as set out in the Council
Conclusions of October 1999 (12092/99 WTO 131), i.e. the agreement should be comprehensive,
ambitious, should aim at reducing existing imbalances and be fully consistent with World Trade
Organisation (WTO) rights and obligations, notably with regard to the WTO General Agreement on
Trade in Services (GATS). The negotiations should be conducted and concluded with due regard to
rights and obligations under the WTO, taking into account the elements for political guidance of the
8th WTO Ministerial Conference by respecting the principles of transparency and inclusiveness.

In detail, the agreement should seek to bind, in general, the autonomous level of liberalisation of the
parties and provide for opportunities through negotiations for improved market access. The
agreement should also be comprehensive and comply with the requirements of GATS Article V in
terms of sectoral and mode of supply coverage. New and enhanced regulatory disciplines based on
proposals by the parties should be developed during the negotiations.

The agreement should take account of the fact that not all WTO-members are participating in the
negotiations. To prevent an automatic and unconditional multilateralisation of the agreement based
on the effect of the most-favoured-nation principle laid down in GATS Article II:1, the plurilateral
services agreement needs to fulfil the conditions of an Economic Integration Agreement pursuant to
GATS Article V, i.e. have a substantial sectoral coverage and provide for the elimination of existing
discriminatory measures and/or the prohibition of new or more discriminatory measures. The
agreement shall be built on the GATS to ensure a smooth future incorporation of the plurilateral
services agreement into the GATS and it shall incorporate GATS core articles. The agreement shall
provide for market access (GATS Article XVI) for services sectors in the same way as
commitments are undertaken, under GATS. It could go beyond GATS by providing for a horizontal
discipline for national treatment (GATS Article XVII) that would be applied in principle to all
sectors and modes of supply, subject to exemptions. In line with the Council Conclusions of 1999,
by applying this horizontal formula subject to exemptions, the negotiations would be more efficient
and would maximise the results. The agreement should have an overall architecture conducive to its
future multilateralisation and set out the mechanisms and conditions of accession and future
multilateralisation. To ensure that the parties observe mutually agreed rules and commitments, the
agreement shall include an effective dispute settlement mechanism. Due regard shall be given to the
dispute settlement mechanism provided for in the WTO Agreement. The European Union will
ensure that the Union and its Member States maintain the possibility to preserve and develop their
capacity to define and implement cultural and audiovisual policies for the purposes of preserving
their cultural diversity. The high quality of the EU's public utilities should be preserved in
accordance with the TFEU and in particular Protocol N° 26 on Services of General Interest, and
taking into account the EU's commitments in this area, including the GATS.

B. PROPOSED CONTENT OF THE AGREEMENT

1. The agreement should confirm the common objective of progressively liberalising trade in
services as a means of promoting economic growth and increasing participation of
developing and least developed countries in world trade.

2. In line with GATS Article V, theagreement should cover substantially all sectors and
modes of supply and provide for the absence or elimination of existing discriminatory
measures and/or the prohibition of new or more discriminatory measures. This should be
without prejudice to the possible exclusion of a limited number of services sectors from the
liberalisation commitments. As in the GATS, the EU shall not take commitments on
audiovisual. The Agreement shall not cover services supplied in the exercise of
governmental authority.

3. The agreement shall confirm the right of the EU and its Member States to regulate and to
introduce new regulations on the supply of services within their territories in order to meet
public policy objectives.

4. The Commission should also ensure that nothing in the agreement prevents the parties
from applying their national laws, regulations and requirements regarding entry and stay,
provided that, in doing so, they do not nullify or impair the benefits accruing from the
agreement. EU and Member States' laws, regulations and requirements regarding work and
labour conditions shall continue to apply.

5. As regards the architecture of the future agreement, the agreement shall be built on GATS
to ensure a smooth future incorporation of the plurilateral services agreement into the
GATS. It shall incorporate at minimum GATS core articles, i.e. Article I (scope and
definition), Article XIV and Article XIV bis (general and security exceptions), Article XVI
(market access), Article XVII (national treatment) and Article XXVIII (definitions).

6. Furthermore, the agreement shall provide for market access (GATS Article XVI) for
services sectors in the same way as commitments are undertaken, under the GATS. It could
go beyond GATS by providing for a horizontal discipline for national treatment (as defined
in GATS Article XVII) that could be applied in principle to all sectors and modes of
supply, subject to exemptions identified by the parties. Exempted discriminatory measures
should be subject to a standstill1 and/or a ratchet clause2. Exemptions to the standstill
and/or ratchet clause would have to be identifiedby the parties.

7. The agreement shall contain new or enhanced regulatory disciplines as compared to GATS
based on proposals by the parties. To that end, the negotiations should aim at including
inter alia regulatory disciplines concerning transparency, domestic regulation, state-owned
enterprises, telecommunication services, computer related services, e-commerce, cross-
border data transfers, financial services, postal and courier services, international maritime
transport services, government procurement for services and subsidies.

8. The agreement shall include an effective dispute settlement mechanism to ensure that the
parties observe mutually agreed rules. Due regard shall be given to the dispute settlement
mechanism provided for in the WTO Agreement.

9. The agreement should have an overall architecture conducive to its future
multilateralisation and the mechanism and conditions for this multilateralisation should be
defined. In the same vein, the agreement should contain an accession clause to ensure that
more WTO members sharing the objectives of the agreement could become a party.

10. The negotiation position of the EU should take due account of any new elements pertaining
to these negotiating directives resulting from the Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA).


----------

COUNCIL OF
THE EUROPEAN UNION
Brussels, 8 March 2013


6891/13
ADD 1
declassified Brussels, 10 March 2015
(OR. en)


6891/13
ADD 1 DCL 1



WTO 53
SERVICES 11
FDI 4
OC 96

[Betty Karlson]

90. Talk about gutting the middle class...

[Baobab]

105. Disciplining Domestic Regulation (must read)

http://www.johnflood.com/summerschool/Arnold_WTO_AOS_2005.PDF

Except that the newer version includes all service sectors and "modes of supply" by default unless they are EXCLUDED IN ADVANCE, NOW.

So how come we Americans aren't in Geneva, where our entire future - rights to use subcontractors who make really low wages or literally run businesses with all their offices on the other side of the planet, and the crapification of health care - which even is likely to include shipping sick people overseas or using doctors and nurses from any of dozens of countries to preserve the tiers and the unjust system forever, and the taking away of public educationto be used as a corporate entitlement - both health care privatization and education commodification began 20 years ago and are almost ready, all that is all being given away to corporations as entitlements. Elected leaders will be ceremonial only. unable to do anything good, only give to corporations and take away from people. (thats called a ratchet clause)

[Betty Karlson]

110. Back to the 1850-ies, at first glance.

[AgingAmerican]

2. Democratic Hari Kari

She is a troubled candidate run by a politically suicidal, self deluded Democratic party.

[elleng]

3. 'If we are going to nominate someone who 50% of our people can't stand,

we are going to lose.'

Marco Rubio

Goes for BOTH parties.

[Journeyman]

5. So how's that going to work in a matchup between Cruz and Clinton? . . .

Does the write-in candidate take it all?

[elleng]

14. Well, as cruz is ineligible to serve,

there will have to be another candidate.

[Bucky]

58. Keep dreamin'

No, Cruz has been an American citizen since birth. His mom was and is a citizen. I hate that birther bullshit, regardless of which party it comes from.

[elleng]

63. I do not challenge that he is a citizen.

The issue is very particular to who can serve as President; he was not born in the United States. It is NOT 'birther bullshit.'

Learn something here:

Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president.

by Mary Brigid McManamon January 12
Mary Brigid McManamon is a constitutional law professor at Widener University’s Delaware Law School.

'Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is not a natural-born citizen and therefore is not eligible to be president or vice president of the United States.

The Constitution provides that “No person except a natural born Citizen .?.?. shall be eligible to the Office of President.” The concept of “natural born” comes from common law, and it is that law the Supreme Court has said we must turn to for the concept’s definition. On this subject, common law is clear and unambiguous. The 18th-century English jurist William Blackstone, the preeminent authority on it, declared natural-born citizens are “such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England,” while aliens are “such as are born out of it.” The key to this division is the assumption of allegiance to one’s country of birth. The Americans who drafted the Constitution adopted this principle for the United States. James Madison, known as the “father of the Constitution,” stated, “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. .?.?. place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”

Cruz is, of course, a U.S. citizen. As he was born in Canada, he is not natural-born. His mother, however, is an American, and Congress has provided by statute for the naturalization of children born abroad to citizens. Because of the senator’s parentage, he did not have to follow the lengthy naturalization process that aliens without American parents must undergo. Instead, Cruz was naturalized at birth. This provision has not always been available. For example, there were several decades in the 19th century when children of Americans born abroad were not given automatic naturalization.' >>>

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html

[Dustlawyer]

67. I can see Trump's attorney's arguing this point in front of SCOTUS if

by some miracle Cruz or Rubio beat him. Doesn't mean SCOTUS will see it that way.

[elleng]

69. Right.

I was kind of looking forward to seeing this at SCOTUS especially/assuming Scalia would be there; interesting as he was 'the' 'originalist.' According to Prof. Mac's reading, the originalist interpretation would throw cruz out. Now, anything's possible.

But if things keep moving, with the 3 mouseteers hanging on and one of them challenging cruz, it should be decided BEFORE it gets to November.

[Dustlawyer]

70. The King of Tort Reform in Texas wh'se ranch Scalia died at in Texas was probably trying to

influence Scalia to keep ol' Ted should he win, among other things!

Hmmm, I wonder why there was never any follow up on what Scalia was doing at this "free stuff" ranch and who the other guest were that were there? Did any of the other guests have business before the court? It's not like poor and middle class people get invited on free hunts that sell for tens of thousands of dollars!

[elleng]

71. Some may want to follow up,

and I think I recall some saying/reciting/listing several/numerous guests with 'lots' of stuff before the Court. Sorry I can't be more specific.

[Dustlawyer]

72. Sounds like he may have his own mafia protection racket going on!

[Herman4747]

86. About his mom: The question arises if...

...in order to vote in Canada's elections -- which she did before Ted was born -- she renounced her American citizenship. For you see, at that time, Canada did not recognize joint citizenship.

[Kip Humphrey]

4. Imagine that! Clinton 1 for 3, Sanders 3 for 3!

My guess is Hillary supporters will be rooting for tRump big time! (possibly crossing over to vote against him?)


Kind of puts to shame the railroading of Bernie's campaign that the DNC is engaging in, don't you think?

[RoccoR5955]

49. Well you know what Camp Weathervane will say?

They will say that Hellery has been subject to all of the wrath of the RepubliCLOWNs with her Benghazi, email and other scandals.
They will dig up that Bernie went to Russia and schmoozed with Boris Yeltzin, then he went to Cuba and smoked cigars with Fidel. and he has not been vetted. They will pull anything from their posterior to make Bernie look bad.
Then all hell breaks loose when we mention any of Hellery's policies that we are against. Don't attack Hellery, they'll say.

[GoneOffShore]

98. And unfortunately Benghazi, emails, etc is just a smoke screen for her more egregious behaviours

Playing kissy face with Kissinger, kanoodling with Kagan, snuggling up to the private prison industry, etc, etc.

HRC was/is/will be an enormous problem for the Democratic Party and all that it used to stand for.

If she is the candidate I'm afraid that we will be in for 8 or 12 years of Republican mis-rule that the country will not recover from.

Before the advent of her candidacy, I was kind of looking forward to my 80th birthday in 12 years. Now, not at all.

And Mrs GoS is frightened to the point of tears at the thought of a Trump or Cruz in the White House. And kind of pissed at the prospect of HRC.

[Unknown Beatle]

109. If Hillary is elected to become president,

after 4 - 8 years of further dismantling this country, do you honestly think she cares about who the next president is after her term(s)?

Hillary loves power, and with power comes extreme wealth. She's not doing it because she cares about the American people, all she cares about is herself and her wall st cronies. She's lying through her teeth at the gullible electorate, and if she becomes president, she'll spit on them and laugh about it.

She does not give a crap if republicans rule after her term(s). She got what she wanted and that's all that matters to her.

We must not let her anywhere near the white house.

[seaotter]

6. This is just one more reason that Hillary should pull out of the race.

For the good of the nation.

[Cali_Democrat]

7. LOL. nt

[seaotter]

8. Of course the other major reason is that she may well be indicted before November.

But her blind ambition will not allow this. She does not care about anything else.

Laugh all you want, but how funny is a republican victory?? Will you still be laughing then?? Of course you can still whine about the "vast RW conspiracy", and all. LOL indeed.

[Cali_Democrat]

9. LOL. nt

[seaotter]

10. Yes, quite funny.

LOL

[Cali_Democrat]

11. LOL. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. The irony is the lack of irony in your interlocutor posting that image.

Think and then infer.

[HoosierRadical]

25. She is too deluded and obsessed with her ego and legacy

to do the right thing.

[longship]

13. Here's Cenk of TYT getting in high dudgeon on this.

Recommended viewing.
R&K

[marions ghost]

15. Reporting on a CNN poll

K&R

[longship]

17. BTW, the CNN poll mentioned in the OP.

[marions ghost]

18. OK thx

[longship]

19. No worries.

It is difficult to keep things straight in primary season.

My best to you.

[TxDemChem]

55. I was just about to mention this

Thanks for posting it

[JudyM]

16. This should be in billboards because voters need to see it.

[MisterP]

20. great, more motive for the DNC to "pull a Papen" and go easy on Trump

[DamnYankeeInHouston]

21. That's the bottom line right there.

So why is the DNC pushing the worse candidate and trying to sabotage the better one?

[HoosierRadical]

27. Because they are bought and paid for by the Clinton machine.

Also, when Bernie wins, there are going to be some major shake-ups within the party leadership structure, many are scared.

[DamnYankeeInHouston]

32. That was a rhetorical question. They've made their motives clear.

[TIME TO PANIC]

22. K & R!

[Helen Borg]

23. No brainer on who we should pick...

[scheming daemons]

24. The only one that matters is how they do against Trump... Cruz and Rubio are done

52-44 for Clinton
55-43 for Sanders

That's within the margin of error and basically a wash.

The good news is, there will still be a "D" in the WH next year. Whoever wins the Dem nomination.



Right now... it is probably 80-20 in favor of that person being Clinton.

[Plucketeer]

43. SO MUCH can (WILL) happen between now

and November. History is FULL of instances where things looked almost CERTAIN - only to deliver a rude surprise.

[Herman4747]

56. Cruz & Rubio are NOT necessarily done!!

Most likely they do lose, I concede. But it should be pointed out that the Republican establishment is quite worried (about congressional races, a candidate not right wing on every issue, etc.), and will be doing what it can to destroy Trump.

It's much safer to have the candidate ahead of all 3 and the candidate that does not have a 54% disapproval rating!!

[Stryder]

59. 80-20?

POOYA numbers?
Bernie got roughly 5/8ths the dels Hills did last night.

[longship]

64. Neither are within the margin of error.

And Bernie has her by 4 points.

And in case you have not noticed, the pressure on Trump is getting pretty strong.

And what if Trump doesn't gain the nomination? (It is still early.)

Oopsie! Hillary loses by current polls, and Bernie wins BIG!

So there's that.

[Trust Buster]

26. Were these the same brilliant pollsters that had Romney beating Obama ONE WEEK before THAT election?

Please, I have toilet paper more valuable than this poll 8 months out with Hillary and Bernie being separated by 3% against Trump. When it comes to margin of error science, this one's a real humdinger.

Lastly, if Bernie were the nominee against Trump and a San Bernadino-type attack occurred, the center would look at Bernie and run without pause to the Right leaving Bernie toast.

Who in their right mind would point to a 3% point difference in a poll 8 months out ? Hillary picked up 3 times that much in a few weeks to upset Bernie in Massachusetts. P.....LEASE.

[Skittles]

34. who in their right mind

indeed

[Trust Buster]

37. Every political scientist worth their salt will tell you that 3% difference 8 months out is utterly

worthless info. Stay thirsty my friends....LOL

[Skittles]

38. yup

[JackRiddler]

45. What?

All the polls being posted here had Clinton very far ahead in Massachusetts, sometimes double digits. Now you're going to turn this near-tie showing of a state that was supposed to be a lock for her into her upset win?

[Trust Buster]

62. No serious thinker would point to a 3% difference 8 months out as evidence of anything. Bottom line

[JackRiddler]

74. Serious thinkers read before they react.

I said nothing on this, my post related to a claim about Massachusetts, so don't ambush me with your mean-sounding talking point. In a sense, I agree: really serious people do not talk about polls much at all, they debate issues in a discussion that allows exchange and development. They might discuss platforms for the country's future, instead of crap lke this. Here on DU, however, everyone brandishes polls as an exercise in bullying, bullshit and counter-bullshit. We act just like the bullshit media.

[Trust Buster]

81. My post related to a claim made in the OP. It wasn't about you. I proudly stand by my post.

[JackRiddler]

100. Proudly! Thanks for a good laugh.

It was epic. Tremendous! Huuuge. One of the greatest posts, a post so great it made your head spin.

Next time, why not reply with your tremendous post to the thing you actually are replying to, rather than waste my time? Thanks.

[Trust Buster]

104. Because I choose to stay on the thread topic. Your rude posts are not welcome.

[JackRiddler]

106. More projection from a would-be "serious thinker."

You're confusing rude with sarcastic. Rude is what you were a) when you made up something about MA polling, b) refused to answer a simple question and c) got nasty - hilariously so - with "serious thinker." Sarcastic is what you got in return. I'm rather better at it than you, but it doesn't seem you can tell.

[Trust Buster]

107. Snore alert !!!!

[elljay]

92. The corollary to this

is that no one should then base their support of Hillary on her being more electable because the current data is not evidence of that. They should base their support on her particular political positions.

[Ford_Prefect]

28. What exactly was all that guff about Un-electability? Dis-information from a highly placed Rat?

Dave's not there, man!

[AzDar]

29. Ayup.

[laruemtt]

30. Careful - don't confuse the cultists with the facts.... n/t

[Skittles]

39. to which politician's cultists do you refer?

[stupidicus]

31. well, HC supporters think their baseless suppositions about this and that trumps these polls

apparently based largely upon the laughable premise that Bernie's campaign will wither and die under a rightwingnut assault, but HC's won't because she's Ms. Clean, and he's Joe Dirt.

[cannabis_flower]

33. Don't worry

Hillary will just have Bill show up in close precincts and close down the polls for 4 hours.

[Attorney in Texas]

35. You say "electability is everything" but what about Hillary's resume? It ain't gonna pad itself.

[SciDude]

36. Clinton should resign now and save America from a Trump presidency.

OH, and save us from her presidency as well...

[thesquanderer]

40. Presidential elections are not won by popular vote.

The question for all of these match-ups should be, who wins what states? Then see who gets to 270.

[Peace Patriot]

73. That's true, but so far Clinton's won mostly in "red states"--

--states that will go Republican anyway--whereas Sanders beat her in "purple states" (MN, CO), crushed her in NH (not sure of color), got a near tie in "blue" MA, a statistical tie in IA (0.06) ("purple"?), and of course blew her away in VT. He also won OK ("red&quot and did pretty well in NV ("red"? can't recall).

I suspect that, if you add all this up, as to electoral votes, Sanders would be competitive, possibly even ahead. I think Clinton got more states on Tuesday, but not by that much (7 of 11, with MA being a near tie). But it seems to me that most of her vote wins are NOT going to be in the Dem electoral column in November (SC, GA, AL, TN, etc.). She could win to beat the band in "red states" and it says nothing about her electability in the GE.

I'd like to see this laid out as electoral votes, thus far. Maybe I can do that in the next few days. Our system is so bloody complicated, to no good purpose, it seems to me. For instance, I think some states are proportional on electoral votes and not others? Need to find that out.

The CNN polls referenced by Cenk are national polls (of "likely voters," I think) and would be pertinent to the "popular vote" in November. You are correct on that.

And the mind-boggling "electoral college" goes by states' totals--all-or-nothing in most cases, I think. The "electoral college" system ALWAYS flirts with a candidate winning the White House who has NOT won the popular vote. It is a colossally stupid system and should be junked. But--like a lot of other things (i.e., "superdelegates&quot --it's what we have to work with.

[thesquanderer]

76. Between HRC and BS, it doesn't matter who wins red states vs blue states

I don't know why this keeps coming up. But a state like New York is going to go for the Dem regardless of whether it's Hillary or Bernie, just as Kansas won't. Which of the two candidates won the primaries for these states is totally irrelevant to how they will go in November. Obama lost NY and MA to Hillary in a big way in 2008, but of course, carried them in November. People don't generally abandon their party in November just because their preferred candidate didn't get the nomination.

[Peace Patriot]

82. However, Clinton's very high "unfavorability" numbers make that prospect more likely...

...in this election than any of I've ever seen (and I've lived a long time)--that is, Democrats abandoning their party (not voting), combined with Independents and disgruntled Republicans not voting, or voting against Hillary Clinton.

Clinton's "unfavorability" numbers (on trustworthiness, honesty, integrity) are over 50%! (--whereas Bernie Sanders' are just the opposite--60% "favorability.&quot What this means is that there is likely a very large voter group who will stay home and not vote, or even vote for Trump (if they're not too bright), because they dislike and don't trust Hillary Clinton.

I think we need to understand that there is an "anti-establishment" citizen rebellion afoot, caused mostly by economic inequality (the rich getting ever richer, while everybody else suffers), which falls on both sides of the political divide--left and right. But a lot of these voters, left and right, could be persuaded to vote for Sanders, because he is so well liked and trusted. Sanders has the highest "favorability" ratings of ALL candidates. These rebellious voters won't likely be persuaded to vote for Clinton. She it total "establishment" in every way, and has no charisma. Many will NOT vote. Some will vote for Trump.

This is why Clinton's wins so far being in "red" states is important. She only managed a near tie in Iowa and MA, got crushed in NH, and lost bell-weather ("purple&quot states, CO and MN. These are the important states, at this point, to judge her viability in November.

She won "red" states now, among Democrats, but she won't win these states in the fall (no Democrat will); and she isn't doing that well in the more Democratic states, among Democrats (let alone trying to draw in Independents--the largest voting group in the country--and disgruntled Republicans). One more thing that I was shocked to read: the Dem turnout in SC was 12.5%! She won most of that 12.5%, but there was NO enthusiasm for her among Democrats. SC is so conservative that Sanders' poor showing there is no surprise. But that is not the case elsewhere. Sanders, with a very hostile corporate media, and no name recognition six months ago, and a self-handicap of NO corporate/superpac money, has beaten her to a draw or better in states that are much more reflective of the country as a whole, than the "red" states are.

It's a tragedy that "red" states are nearly synonymous with general poverty and poor education, all run by Republicans. I hope that there is a rebellion there before long. But I don't see it happening soon, certainly not before November. Her victories there are pyrrhic, as the campaign moves north and west, much more favorable country for Sanders and more important in the GE.

The GE should be very much on our minds, at this point. Who can win the GE? There are many indicators that Sanders can and Clinton cannot.

I am a big Sanders supporter, but I do have the ability to draw back and look at a bigger picture than my own partisanship. I think Clinton is in big trouble. That 12.5% number in SC really struck me, and the national "favorability" numbers, too. Clinton not only has heavy "baggage" of all kinds, she is not liked. She is not even attracting Democrats very well, and she will drive undecided voters away.

Sanders is a fresh new candidate, with no baggage, and no corporate/bankster ties, with many attractive, New Deal proposals, and with great stamina and fight, not to mention the awesome ability to raise all the funds he needs from small donors. He is a REAL anti-establishment candidate, as opposed to the fake one, Trump.

[thesquanderer]

94. I agree with most of your points... but not the main one.

I still think the fact that Hillary's wins have largely been in "red" states says nothing about her ability to capture "blue" or "purple" states in November. I agree with you that she has electability issues, and that Bernie would be stronger, I just don't see the distribution of which of them wins which states against the other as having any real bearing on that.

[houston16revival]

41. Ed Schultz

today unimpressed with HRC's southern 'victories' because he says Dems won't carry
ANY of those states anyway. But Bernie made bacon on purple MN and CO

Perhaps GOP is pushing TRUMP to force us into a weaker candidate in the fall? HRC?

The two main parties USE one another to keep the power between them

It's all falling apart this year

[Uncle Joe]

42. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Bucky.

[Enthusiast]

44. Kicked and recommended!

[FighttheFuture]

46. K&R!

[PufPuf23]

47. Clinton so far has mostly "won" states likely to go GOP or

Trump in the primary election while Sanders has won Democratic (Blue) states or been extremely close in Massachusetts and Iowa.

Sanders is likely to continue to gain support while Clinton marginally loses over time.

Sanders does not have near the negative image in the population at large as Clinton despite the smears from the Clinton campaign.

The "darkside" of Sanders is no way comparable to that of Clinton, Trump, nor the GOP clown car.

FWIW Clinton seems far preferable to me than Trump or the GOP candidates.

If our leadership and government were not "fixed" against fair and common interests, we voters would have a better selection of candidates.

[Peace Patriot]

75. Sanders vs Clinton on "favorability" are almost opposites...

Cenk just reported Sanders has 60% favorability, nationally, and Clinton has 54% unfavorability!

This has been consistent with other polls.

You put it too mildly: "Sanders does not have near the negative image in the population at large as Clinton...".

Sanders has a huge edge on "favorable" image, nationwide, among ALL candidates, not just Clinton. Details have included honesty, integrity and trustworthiness. Sanders simply blows Clinton (and everybody else) away in these sort of polls.

[PufPuf23]

77. Six of the 7 states just "won" by Clinton had GOP exceed Democratic turnout

by substantial margins while Sanders won the states except Massachusetts that could be expected to go "blue" in the general election.

I agree with your excellent post and do not get why so many folks are so faithful to Hillary Clinton except habit and propaganda.

[XRubicon]

48. If electability is everything then why is Berine losing in his "own" party?

Bernie sure is popular outside the Democratic party.

[zentrum]

50. This is a terrible

…problem.

The Establishment just cannot face that its hold on the country is slipping away. They will push her forward no matter what. Besides, they prefer Trump, Cruz or Rubio to a real FDR Democrat. No doubt about it.

That's why these stats don't deter them. They know the same corporate powers will be in charge if any of the 3 Repubs win. Oh—and that way, they'll avoid all the headache of actually having to govern. They may prefer a Dem loss altogether.

[ALBliberal]

51. I can't understand how Hillary polls below

Rubio and Cruz. She's so very much more qualified than those two. It's troubling to me. Almost as if they would vote for any establishment republican over her. I don't like this.

[greymouse]

57. Hillary has zero qualifications

She messed up big time as Secretary of State. She couldn't get healthcare through Congress in Bill's administration.

Plus, she lies her head off. All one can tell about what she'd do is ignore what she says and look at her record - she loves war; she loves Wall Street; she cares zero about the 99% ($15 is too high for a minimum wage she says, while she rakes in 1/4 to 1/2 a mill for a speech. That's sickening.

I haven't even looked at Rubio or Cruz, but they have the advantage of not possibly being worse that her record, plus no smirking Clinton faces in the news for the next eight years.

[pdsimdars]

52. "Electability is everything" is what they used to say

until Bernie kept winning all those poll against all the GOP candidates and Hillary didn't. Now they say that those polls don't mean anything.
HA!!

[pdsimdars]

53. And don't forget those polls about likeability and trustworthiness

Bernie is the highest in history and Hillary is among the lowest.
The general public doesn't like her and can't trust her. Ya think that might have an effect on how they vote ? ? ? ?

[Nyan]

54. K & R

[Kenjie]

60. This needs to be out there all day everyday

Bernie is more electable.

[warrprayer]

61. Apparently electability

Isn't that important...

[George II]

65. We'll never know about that, Sanders won't be running against any of those republicans.

[billhicks76]

66. Hillary Can't Motivate People For Voter Turnout

Clintonites can whine all they want but I suspect they have turned off enough voters who will give up on the electoral process and see the only solution to our corruption to is to deal with in the streets. I know many Democrats live in ivory towers and will never accept this truth. This could easily mean a Republican victory. But sometimes one has to hit rock-bottom before they acknowledge their problem and seek help. Having a Republican President will definitely build the Democratic opposition away from apathy but is it worth the cost? In my opinion the Clinton campaign has sold us all out to the Republicans who currently are registering too many new voters for Democrats to win. You would think the first woman President could get the masses excited but it's not happening yet. It amazes me how many people hate her and think she is a liar. People want change not status quo and they are full of fear. Im curious what Vegas says.

[chervilant]

68. I've added three more to my IL

from this OP alone.

I will NEVER understand how ANYONE can overlook Hi11ary's deceit and her vote on Iraq, and her multitude of OTHER baggage, to support her for POTUS. I hope she never gets within a stone's throw of the White House!

[hillarysong2016]

78. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Judge Clinton by her Actions, not just words; Hillary's poor judgement

[avaistheone1]

87. Defintely. Her actions show

exactly who Shillary is. And it is not a pretty picture.

[kristopher]

80. "electability is everything" -- That'swhattheysaid; yep; that'swhattheysaid!!!!

[Cobalt Violet]

83. our party isn't acting sensibly at all in this.

Her supporters seem to be well-off bubble dwellers. They and the party are misreading the electorate.

[Triana]

84. BERNIE SANDERS tops all three Republicans by wide margins . . .

. . . 57% to 40% against Cruz, 55% to 43% against Trump, and 53% to 45% against Rubio

(I notice the headline doesn't mention that - it's buried in the article)

[Xipe Totec]

85. Electability is not everything. Policy matters.

Which is why I support Bernie.

[Marr]

89. Seriously, Clinton supporters-- how do you explain your flip flop on this?

The refrain from the Hillary camp early on was that 'electability' was of prime importance, and that while you liked what Sanders said, he hand no chance of winning a national election, so you'd go with the 'pragmatic' choice of Hillary Clinton.

What do you say now? Is 'electability' suddenly not important at all? You were just kidding before?

[beachbum bob]

91. next of no focus on sanders by the righwing mean machine

I dare say bernie will lose and lose big to any conservative nominee as his painted as "unamerican"....unwilling to serve his country....afraid to make the killshot.....bernie will be decimated on security and safety of america. Make no mistake about that....the attacks will be pointed and effective to make all the soccer moms afraid of bernie in the whitehouse.....being a conscientious object/pacifist doesn't bode well to be elected president

[bvar22]

99. Oh I SO agree.

Warmongers and War Profiteers are much better for America.
We need a president who can turn the most advanced countries in the Middle East into hell holes dominated by fundamentalists, killing millions of innocent brown people, men women & children displacing millions more,
and still sleep good at night.

That is the ticket for AMERICA,
and Hilary is your girl!

[Gamecock Lefty]

93. Guess what the funny thing about this is, though???

Ol Bernie is not going to win his primary to even get a chance at the nationals! It's a moot point. Take that to the bank!

[Cosmic Dancer]

95. Too bad Democrats don't have the guts to buck their party's establishment!

[Darb]

96. Meaningless.

No, really, meaningless.

[rtracey]

97. ummm

ok so...... what are the margin of errors?

Dems vs Trump:
Clinton 52 - Trump 44................... 52 so this is not electable?
Sanders 55- Trump 43...................55 but this is?

Dems vs Rubio:......................RUBIO - DONE
Clinton 47 - Rubio 50
Sanders 53- Rubio 45

Dems vs Cruz:.......................CRUZ - DONE
Clinton 48 - Cruz 49
Sanders 57- Cruz 40

[doc03]

101. If he can't beat Hillary how could he do so good in the

general election?

[libdem4life]

102. I'd call it a Cult of Personality...in complete denial about the salient facts. Familiarity

with the name and the MSM participating in attempting to insure her corporatist and hawkish political persona for the nomination...while almost completely avoiding Bernie. This would not be the case in the General.

[doc03]

103. Do you ever wonder why the Republicans have barely

even mentioned Bernie's name? Seems to me Clinton is the one they don't want to face since they have spent
all their time trashing her for the last 25 years. Of course now we have Democrats helping them.

[libdem4life]

108. I don't let the Republicans make up my mind. I use my own faculties. I have never trashed HRC.

I just choose to vote for Bernie. Why? Because of his consistent record, his statesmanship, and what he stands for...getting out of a rigged economy starting with the current political financing method which is rigged to keep up the rigged economy.

Enough is Enough.

ETA: One more reason...half of Republicans want Trump. That doesn't say much for their opinion of anything. Oh, and they have Cruz and Rubio, too. Maybe they think they are playing 12th dimension chess with Chinese Checkers mentality.