A few more poll updates from Huffington Pollster:

[George II]

Released today:

Ipso/Reuters National - Clinton 44, Sanders 27, Biden 18
Field - California - Clinton 47, Sanders 35

Others (some already posted yesterday):

PPP - North Carolina - Clinton 37, Biden 30, Sanders 17
Quinnipiac - Florida - Clinton 43, Biden 19, Sanders 19
Quinnipiac - Ohio- Clinton 40, Biden 21, Sanders 19
Quinnipiac - Pennsylvania- Clinton 36, Biden 25, Sanders 19

Latest HP Compilation of all polls:

National - Clinton 43.6, Sanders 25.4, Biden 20.2
North Carolina - Clinton 43, Biden 19, Sanders 19
Florida - Clinton 49.9, Biden 17.Sanders 17.2
Ohio -Clinton 40.0, Sanders 19.0, Biden 14.0
Pennsylvania - Clinton 36.4, Biden 24.0, Sanders 19.5
California - Clinton 47.0, Sanders 23.0, Biden 11.0

Source: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster#2016-races

[Iliyah]

1. Looking good!

[Cali_Democrat]

2. In some states, Bernie is losing to a guy who hasn't even declared his intention to run for Prez

Yikes.

[Tommy2Tone]

3. I guess not everyone is feeling the Bern?

[leftofcool]

8. I keep checking every day to see if I am feeling it and and nope, it's just not there.

[workinclasszero]

38. Nope no burn here

I've never heard my co workers ever say Bernies name but they all know Hillary Clinton

[bobbobbins01]

4. Eh, they're still an improvement over the last Reuters poll.

So the trend continues. Next stop, the debates!

[highprincipleswork]

5. We'll see

If and when everyone who is less engaged gets to know the candidates, we'll see how it shakes out.

The only two things standing in the way of a true test are:
1. the media. Coverage of candidates other than Hillary has been measly.
2. the debates. fewer debates means less coverage for less known candidates. coverage is apparently being restricted, for some reason, by the DNC. Both by holding fewer debates and by scheduling them at odd times.

If we want a Democratic presidential candidate that everyone can stand and be acknowledged as the true, best candidate, it seems to me we should be having more debates and allowing all the candidates to become as equally known as possible.

If we want to fix the nomination process in one way or the other, we should have fewer debates and less access for lesser known candidates.

Those who support Hillary should, in my opinion, be working as hard to make sure the process is perceived as fair as anybody else. Because if it continues to feel like a power play that disenfranchises candidates that many longtime Democrats hold dear, that is bad for team spirit, for party loyalty, for donations, for volunteering, and for voting.

It's just human nature. And it's as simple as that.

[upaloopa]

6. You can't change the past

Hillary is well know and Bernie isn't because of their positions in government over their careers. But that is not the reason for Hillary's poll numbers. More people want her to be president than they want Bernie.
I wish you could get over the unfair thing.

[highprincipleswork]

17. As much as I wish you could lobby for more open, free, and fair debates?

[Scootaloo]

26. Yeah, actually it is the reason

Even Hillary's "supporters" haven't been able to articulate a reason for her to be president, other than "She has poll numbers!"

[uponit7771]

31. I can and have articulated why I'm leaning Hillary and it's because Sanders isn't articulating

.. what the fuck is he going to do with a GOP congress that doesn't put America first.

Hillary is outlining executive actions, can do it from day one and I don't hate her enough to distrust her with wingerish fever.

Sanders will follow her lead soon

[Scootaloo]

33. Her line was "making warm purple sauce," if i recall.

[uponit7771]

34. Yeap, better than "I'll stab them in their nostrils" cause that'll get anything done. I'm not into..

...purity test, I can't afford them.

I can afford 2 steps forward instead of 5

Vs no steps at all

and

feeling good someone throw a middle finger to the right... I'm not that well off

[Scootaloo]

35. You can afford compromise with the "Freedom Caucus"?

Must be nice to have such a surplus of privilege.

[uponit7771]

36. I can afford getting some shit done vs nothing at all, thrown the baby out with the bath water is

... only available for the rich... cause they can buy their babies and the bath water... and the bathtub and the plumbing etc etc.


I can't

[Scootaloo]

37. What shit do you envision getting done through compromise with fanatics, exactly?

You look at Tom Cotton, or James Inhofe. They seem fairly representative of the GOP in the legislature.

In order to "get shit done" you will need to compromise with these people and their like. Okay. So. What on your list is of so little worth that you will discard it simply to get these legislators "on board"? Whose rights are of so little value to you that you regard them as wholly disposable, just to create motion - not necessarily forward motion, at that?

'Cause that's what centrism is all about. That's what your lust for compromise and bipartisanship leads o, when one of the parties in power is like the republicans.

[uponit7771]

39. None,she's not talking about compromising using executive action... Sanders will follow soon

[Scootaloo]

40. And I expect if he does, you guys will howl about hisneed ot "work with congress"

After all, it's one of those oft-recycled talking points you guys have been usong sicne he declared.

Anything to cover up the real reason for your antipathy, I guess

[leftofcool]

9. Actually coverage of the M'OM and bernie has been pretty extensive.

People do know their names, they are just not interested.

[highprincipleswork]

19. Analyses of press coverage, at least till recently show about an 8 to 1 coverage ratio H to B

[George II]

23. What data did you use for that analysis?

[highprincipleswork]

25. I guess this is one of the better ones.

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/01/the_networks_are_doing_the_democrats_dirty_pundits_punish_hillary_bernie_gets_ignored_partner/

Ok, the downside here is that Hillary's coverage has also had an equal number of stories about the e-mail situation. Not so good. But if you add up her minutes here, without the e-mails, it's actually over 10 to 1. If you include stories about the e-mails (under "there's no such thing as bad publicity" for name recognition) that would be about 20 to 1.

I'm sure those who support Hillary over Bernie would love to do without the e-mail coverage, so let's just take the first figure, as reported here, only one of the places I've seen this reported.

But let me ask this. Why wouldn't the DNC want to receive the kind of publicity for someone that Trump is getting through his campaign and largely the debates? He's getting twice again the coverage that Hillary is getting.

There's really only one explanation for this diminishing of energy, of expression, of largely free publicity, of getting everyone's message out there, of vetting the candidates - they are trying to protect something or someone. It has the appearance, at least, of a rigged election, which again is not good. Because supporters of the other candidates may not re-up for the winner, if it seriously looks like it's rigged. They have high principled reasons for supporting the other candidates, and they may not feel the need to support a winner that looks low-principled or that they perceive won through a low-principled process.

High principles win, if not now, then in the end. They are geared towards survival itself, in its best form not its worst.

There should be more debates, if you want a free and open and fair process, if you want to let everybody have a chance to select the best candidate, if you want the maximum number of people to support the process and the winner.

Oh, there's one more reason lurking behind limiting debate. It could be fear. Again, not your highest principled emotion. Working from fear is sometimes necessary, but in the long run as a strategy, never did anyone all that much good.

[George II]

28. That's just ABC, NBC, and CBS (which you didn't include in your excerpt), it doesn't include....

the cable networks or newspapers, magazines, internet news outlets. Comparatively speaking the "major" networks are barely a factor in what you refer to as "press coverage".

Just a day or two ago there was a 6 minute interview on MSNBC (Joe Scarborough), there have been interviews on CNN, and CNN is using him (and Clinton) to push their coverage of the debate next week.

So, using just ABC, NBC, and CBS as a gauge of overall coverage is inaccurate.

[highprincipleswork]

29. Always an answer, but never really getting or dealing with the point.

I guess it would make sense that those who like Hillary can come up with an excuse for just about anything. Especially when called upon to just simply do what is right.

Those are things I wish she could do also. Simply do what is right. Like hold more debates and at better times, if for no other reason than to satisfy that significant part of the Democratic Party that shows an interest in the outcome. And quit with the excuses. And quit with the self-righteous lecturing or gloating at the same time.

Sorry, that pretty much sums up the divide. Some of us think Bernie is playing a much straighter game. Hope we'e not disappointed.

[Scootaloo]

41. Your post is special pleading, George II

[George II]

42. What Scootaloo? Pleading for WHAT, and what's so special about it?

Did you read the post I responded to?

[Scootaloo]

43. It's a form of logical fallacy, George.

Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption.

You're arguing that highprincipleswork's sources "don't count," because they tell you something you don't want to hear. Instead you invent a new standard that he has to follow to "count." Which is weird, since you're the one who wanted the sources in the first place. It's kind of obvious that no answer would have been sufficient for you.

[George II]

44. No, I think it's you who is "inventing". He/she mentioned "press coverage".......

....had Clinton over Sanders by a ratio of 8-1 (if I recall correctly). I asked him where he got his analysis and he cited a review of ABC, CBS, and NBC - ONLY! And it wasn't that big of a ratio anyway.

Those three networks are only a small fraction of the "press" - no mention of CNN, MSNBC, Fox (hate to mention that one), newspapers, magazines, etc, which are all part of the "press". His analysis was incomplete to say the least, but most likely majorly flawed.

So where do you come up with the stuff that I "invented"? The "logical fallacy" is in the original analysis, not my comments.

This is all WAAAAY off topic anyway.

[Scootaloo]

45. You declared him wrong. He provided sources. You proclaimed they don't count.

And you don't seem to be providing any figures or information of your own to show us that he's actually wrong.

His sources only "don't count" because they say what you don't want to hear, and you don't actually have the ability to counter it. so you need for there to be "special rules" that make you right and him wrong, even though the opposite is clearly true.

[George II]

46. You've done this before, so let's do this....

....let me know where I did either of these:

"You declared him wrong"

"You proclaimed they don't count"

Then we'll continue this discussion, okay?

[George II]

47. Mighty quiet around here.

[uponit7771]

32. Yes, Hillary has 95% negative coverage while the press pretty much showers the others

[LuvLoogie]

15. Sorry. Your perceptions are yours.

This Hillary supporter feels no obligation to coddle
anyone's feelings or validate anyone's perceptions.

[highprincipleswork]

18. I'd love to meet any five Hillary supporters on the street and see who coddles who.

[William769]

7. Kick & recommended.

[zappaman]

10. Bullshit. The latest poll has Sanders winning all 50 states.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251650529

nice try though...

[SunSeeker]

13. LOL

[leftofcool]

21. LMAO!

[sheshe2]

11. Looking good!

[oasis]

16. Kick (eom)

[SunSeeker]

12. K & R

[oasis]

14. Let's kick this baby into debate day.

[Persondem]

20. Good news. K & R. nt

[leftofcool]

22. K&R

[Lisa D]

24. K&R

[redstateblues]

27. Obviously all are outliers funded by neoliberal third way corporatists

[George II]

30. Funded by the oligarchy.