NBC News Poll Shows Hillary Weak...

hard to figure out. $$$$$$$$$

the draw is that Sanders promises to put the brakes on the swamp of corruption in DC

and those votes will not be convertible with HRC as the nominee - she's exactly what these voters don't want

anti-corruption is the #1 need in this country today... nothing else can get done in a system so deeply undermined by conflict of interest

The OP asked, if Hillary has a tough time with Sanders, how can she beat Trump ? Answer: Trump is not traveling from college campus to college campus offering naive students trillions in benefits. That's the big elephant in the room irrespective of your Sargeant Shultz routine.

Hillary?

the clinton crowd is operating with the blinders on... after it's too late - they still won't get it. They will just blame everyone else for her loss.
'

Price Tag of Bernie Sanders’s Proposals: $18 Trillion

From guess where...

The Wall Street Journal!

http://www.wsj.com/articles/price-tag-of-bernie-sanders-proposals-18-trillion-1442271511

Then this faulty meme gained traction was people like you who embraced and repeated the Republican lies...

The Wall Street Journal gets whacked: How its Bernie Sanders hit piece completely backfired
...the program would involve spending $15 trillion over a decade. But they left out the key detail: it would actually save the country a total $5 trillion over those 10 years. We’d see those savings in reduced administrative waste, lower pharmaceutical and device prices, and by decreasing the rate of medical inflation.

Because the simple fact is: We, as a people, are going to spend that $15 trillion on health care anyway. The difference is that under the current model, we pay that money to private insurance companies. And those private companies have much higher levels of administrative costs, fraud and general waste than Medicare does. Another difference is that the government would be negotiating drug prices, making drugs more affordable for everyone.

And who would see that $5 trillion in savings? Businesses for one. Along with state and local governments. Because they wouldn’t have to pay for their employees’ insurance — who’d be covered by Medicare for All.

http://www.salon.com/2015/09/24/the_wall_street_journal_gets_whacked_how_its_bernie_sanders_hit_piece_completely_backfired_partner/

Republicans have been working to convert the once-neutral "entitlement" label into a negative to make it easier for Congress to cut social programs.

While an entitlement used to be a positive — indicating a citizen's right to the benefits of a program they paid into — the term is now used to portray social spending that's out of control...

....Some Democrats have argued they should call Social Security and Medicare "earned benefits" programs instead of "entitlements." But it never caught on. And now Republicans have framed the debate.

http://theweek.com/articles/465537/entitlement-dirty-word

Every day at DU for the past six months.

Thanks for keeping the streak alive!

Indiana is a long shot for the general, but not impossible. If Hillary beats Bernie in Indiana, it just means that the Dems in Indiana are supporting the Dem who would be less likely to carry Indiana in November. But that's what I feel the whole race has been like, Dems supporting the nomination of the candidate who will be weaker against Trump. Luckily, I think either Dem would beat Trump, but I think Bernie would beat him more handily, possibly carrying more states and then more congressional representatives on his coattails. Head-to-head polling, unfavorability ratings, and the lack of an investigation hanging over his head all favor Bernie as the stronger candidate for the general. But, we'll get what we get, and it will almost certainly be Hillary, and she should at least be good enough to win.

When was the last time Indiana was in play for the Democrats and we needed that state's Electorial Votes?

we heard the same thing in New York. But she doesn't have to.

She can lose every single one, and still collect enough pledged delegates to win, never mind the superdelegates.

However, the OP brought up the GE and Trump, like it matters now, and that IN, might suddenly have a pole shift from conservative to liberal. Which, I see as a fantasy, as there is no evidence of Indiana's liberalization.

Off the top of my head I believe the last time IN went blue at the presidential level was 1964 and before that 1940!!!

The everchanging tune...

But Indiana did give safe harbor to the KKK when they were first run out of the South and that allowd them to stage a comeback in the 1950s.

Indiana has its sins and they are many.

There's a reason for that.

And those who try to make an argument that Hillary can, but Bernie cannot, win are dishonest. (And I am using that word kindly.) The Republicans, as we see with their primaries (as played out so far), are in a world of trouble. The fact that their voters are nominating Donald Trump tells us all what self-identified Republicans think of their party.

People at the convention will be falling asleep.

"I was wrong on that vote."

"I changed my thinking."

"The republicans made me do it."

Hillary Clinton has a propensity to change her mind on big issues. She has reversed her positions on gay marriage, immigration, gun control, the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact, mass incarceration and the Iraq War, and some believe her recent stand on the Keystone XL pipeline constitutes a flip, too.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/democratic-debate-hillary-clinton-flip-flop-213247#ixzz47V7yeKEB
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Hillary Clinton bombs with the two youngest voting-age groups: 17–/18–29 and 30–44. For Bernie Sanders to lose any states to Hillary and still carry the youngest age group by 3-to-1 (like Massachusetts and New York) or 4-to-1 (like Illinois and Pennsylvania) long after the first two states—Iowa and New Hampshire (again, 80 percent or more from this age group)—should inform anyone shilling for Hillary that she has her work to do for them. (No party frontrunner should be losing one’s party’s No. 1 voting-age base—the only one which carried nationally in 2004 for John Kerry—that badly.)

Sanders will win easily.

If he can't win in a state that's favorable to him like Indiana, how is he going to beat Trump?

See, I can make ridiculous nonsequitur arguments too.

You HRC supporters just spew nonsense regardless of the truth.

Indiana is perhaps the reddest state in the Midwest. How the hell is that "favorable" to Bernie? This is just like next-level cray-cray... Do you have any idea what the electoral map looked like the past half-dozen GEs? Or, let me guess, just making it up as you go along....

Sanders best performances in primaries have been mostly in the rural and more conservative areas of states, while Clinton performs better in more liberal and Democratic areas. The exception is Wisconsin, but he still won conservative counties there too. Look at a damn map and learn something about politics before flying off the handle and calling people crazy.

Not to mention it was an open caucus format.

Let me start with saying I live in Indiana. The state has an AA population of less than 10%. Based on the historical performance, that favors Sanders. Also, the states Democratic populations are concentrated in 5 areas..... Indianapolis, Bloomington, West Lafayette, Muncie, and the Gary/Chicagoland area. 3 of those areas are University towns (Bloomington, West Lafayette, and Muncie) and Indy is not as Democratic as many big cities. It is a majority white city. AA's make up only about 28% of the population in Indy. As someone active in Democratic politics in the state, I can tell you that while we are definitely outnumbered by the Republicans here (I live in Mike Pence's old district... blech!), the party itself is pretty progressive.

Indiana has an open primary and is 84% white. So, yes, it's a state he should win. As I've pointed out numerous times throughout this campaign, the Clinton-Red State meme takes reality and flips it on its head. Look at Romney's margin of victory in each of the states he won in 2012:

1) Utah: 48 points
2) Wyoming: 41 points
3) Oklahoma: 34 points
4) Idaho: 32 points
5) West Virginia: 27 points
6) Arkansas: 24 points
7) Nebraska: 23 points
8) Kentucky: 22 points (22.7)
9) Alabama: 22 points (22.3)
10) Kansas: 22 points (22.2)
11) Tennessee: 20 points (20.5)
12) North Dakota: 20 points (19.8)
13) South Dakota: 18 points
14) Louisiana: 17 points
15) Texas: 16 points
16) Alaska: 14 points (14.0)
17) Montana: 14 points (13.5)
18) Mississippi: 12 points
19) South Carolina: 11 points (10.6)
20) Indiana: 11 points (10.5)
21) Arizona: 10 points (10.1)
22) Missouri: 10 points (9.6)
23) Georgia: 8 points
24) North Carolina: 2 points

Sid

over an unknown Senator who was 60 points behind when this started.

I would say that is very weak.

Of course Dems have more trouble choosing between them -- their positions are not that far apart.

But they won't have any trouble choosing between Hillary and any of the Rethugs.