3 Points: Rubio is likeliest Repub nominee. Sanders beats Rubio by 4%. Rubio beats Clinton by 3%.

[Attorney in Texas]

These three points warrant consideration:

Rubio is likeliest Republican nominee.

Sanders beats Rubio by 4% (this most recent poll result is part of a consistent trend).

Rubio beats Clinton by 3% (this most recent poll result is part of a consistent trend).

[LexVegas]

1. In the poll you cite as evidence Sanders leads Rubio, Clinton leads Rubio as well. LMAO. nt

[SidDithers]

2. You're trying way too hard, Texas Lawyer...nt

Sid

[Attorney in Texas]

4. Whereas the Clinton campaign is not trying hard enough. Ironic.

[VanillaRhapsody]

11. How hard should they

they have a better than 90% chance of winning?

[Attorney in Texas]

14. Probably they should work on the untrustworthiness issues. That would help.

[VanillaRhapsody]

16. Apparently trustworthy enough

WINNING!

[Sancho]

45. So we know Rubio is untrustworthy in the eyes of some repubs...is your advice for him or Bernie?

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/259213-right-wing-media-takes-aim-at-rubio

There are some influential conservative pundits with whom Rubio’s relationship appears beyond repair.

Ingraham, Malkin and Coulter consistently hammer Rubio for his past support for immigration reform and warn their audiences regularly that if elected president, he’ll fold on the issue.

They got more ammunition on that front when billionaire Republican Paul Singer, who supports immigration reform, announced last week he’d throw his financial support behind Rubio in the primary.

Bernie is untrustworthy in the eyes of independent/socialists. [This is not meant to be from a Democratic source, it's an example from Bernie's background to address the OP and comments for consideration.]

https://bhermannview.wordpress.com/2015/11/09/a-letter-to-bernie-bots-and-sanders-supporters/

As a self-defined independent radical who despises the Establishment and the elites who control this country, you might think that I’d support Bernie Sanders’s presidential candidacy and call for “political revolution.” But, you’d be wrong. Instead, I’ve refused to endorse Sanders on any conditions. Even if he becomes the Democratic presidential candidate, which is highly unlikely, I’m still not going to give him my support. Some Sanders supporters who may be reading this may think that this would imply that I support Hillary Clinton or some other candidate running in the Democratic primary, or even a Republican. That can’t be farther from the truth. I refuse to support the Democratic or Republican parties or any candidates within them. There could be some instance that I’d support a Democrat, especially if they come into office thanks to grassroots pressure through a social movement, but in general I refuse to get involved in the toxic game of partisan politics which defines “politics” for too many. I take the viewpoint of self-defined black nationalist Robert F. Williams who wrote in his famed book, Negroes with Guns that “as an individual, I’m not inclined toward “politics.” The only thing I care about is justice and liberation. I don’t belong to any political party.”

In order to explain my opposition to the current Bernie Sanders campaign I recommend previous articles I have written on this subject (‘The reality of professed progressive Bernie Sanders,’ Countering the avid “Berniemania” once again,’ ‘Bringing together criticism of Bernie Sanders,’ ‘Bernie Sanders and military budgets,’ ‘Beware of (Colonel) Sanders,’ and ‘What’s the matter (Colonel) Bernie Sanders…chicken?‘). But let me sum my reasons for opposition. For one, I feel that since the Sanders campaign did not come out of any social movement, like the Obama campaign or most campaigns for political office in the United States, that it will not lead to an increase in grassroots organizing which is sorely needed. Additionally, when Sanders loses, which seems to be an obvious prospect, then Sanders supporters will feel disillusioned and will pull back from political participation. This is not something anyone should want. If Sanders does win, then activists will have been pulled in to the Democratic Party, which weakens the cause of those who want to build alternatives to the two-party system, and it will chew up the causes of these activists and spit them out. That is also a result that no one should look forward to.

So...you cite a poll where the match up is 45/41 vs 44/43 and this is before the first primary. Essentially, they are the same and within any reasonable error at this early date in one small Northern state. From that you stretch to reach some strange conclusion that it "warrants consideration". I took your advice and upon consideration, I'd say that if Bernie is only able to barely take on Rubio or Hillary on his home turf, and he is criticized by his own origins - well, he won't stand a chance in the Sunbelt where he has no allies or base and where Rubio and Hillary both have lots of support. Likewise, Rubio needs to secure his own base or he will lose in the Sunbelt too.

[Armstead]

52. So hard core ideological socialists don't trust Sanders because he's not radical or purist enough

I wouldn't put that into the same category of overall untrustworthiness based on ethics.

[Sancho]

54. I think that everyone needs to see from other's viewpoint...

and to the young author who doesn't like Bernie, he writes why in a series of articles. I found him interesting because college students here in Florida express some similar thoughts about Bernie. The OP assumes a NH polls carries a national message. I disagree. The OP generalizes way beyond any evidence, and the conclusions suggested have a minimal basis in facts. Burkley Hermann at least can claim youth and inexperience. I have no idea if Attorney in Texas has a mitigating background.

Hey there everybody. My name is Burkely Hermann. I’m a concerned citizen, Marylander, researcher, and student who cares about what’s going on his state, the country, and the world. I also deeply believe in social activism, and that we should engage in actions to make another world possible. I weire about a range of subjects, including war, peace, imperialism, social movements, non-profits, mass surveillance and more. Andrew Zaleski, almost a bit hilariously, calls me an “19-year-old blogger [now 20], St. Mary’s College undergraduate and protestor who participated in the Occupy Baltimore protests in the Inner Harbor in 2011” on his post about Mayor Failings-Blake, a parody twitter account I created about Mayor Stephanie-Rawlings Blake. I really haven’t been profiled anywhere else, but I estimate that I’ve written over 200 articles since 2008, which is a hell of a lot. That’s all.

[Armstead]

55. I'm not criticizing the author.

The only problem that Ihave with ideological socialists is that I don't think that level of sweeping change in the entire system is going to happen. As I've become an old fart, I've come to realize you have to work within the system you're given, and try and reform, that.

But my point was that distrusting Bernie for ideological reasons is not the same as distrust on a deeper level of integrity and character, oputside of ideology.

[Sancho]

63. I believe the young author has been very specific about his distrust - and it's not just ideological

https://bhermannview.wordpress.com/2015/11/09/a-letter-to-bernie-bots-and-sanders-supporters/

Beyond this, there are other reasons other than what Sanders said in the Democratic Presidential Debate, that I am critical of Sanders. Let me list them:

Support for the Department of Homeland Security in March of this year when it looked like it might not be funded.
Support for Israeli bombing of Gaza (esp. in 2014) and the Israeli occupation of Palestine.
Supports President Obama’s bombing of ISIS.
Supports a plan that makes Arab states, which are US proxies and receive loads of US weapons, such as Saudi Arabia the forefront “defeating” ISIS by military force
Claimed (and claims) that Iran is building a nuclear weapon when it isn’t.
Proposed few or little cuts to the military budget. Some Sanders supporters have said he would cut the military budget by 10% but I haven’t heard him ever say that. Even if he did want to cut the military, he likely wouldn’t dismantle the war machine as a whole.
Supporting certain wars in Bosnia, Afghanistan war (he voted for it), and Iraq (2014-5) while opposing wars in other countries such as Iraq (1990, 2003). This inconsistency is disturbing. He also has opposed a proposed war in Syria (as long as one with Iran), yet he had voiced support for arming magical/non-existent Syrian “rebels” who are making the civil war in Syria even more violent.
While he voted against many military budgets, he voted for $4.185 trillion dollars at maximum, in military funding since the 1990s, taking the broadest measure which includes yes votes, voice votes and unanimous consent, and $2.77 trillion dollars in military funding since the 1990s, if that is minimized to only “yes” votes
Voted against the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which regulated handguns.
Voted for the racist Violent Crime Control & Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a Clinton-era crime bill, which expands the death penalty, puts in place a three-strikes rule for some with “three or more convictions for serious violent felonies or drug trafficking crimes,” and increases money for “border control” and deportation of immigrants.
Voted for the Iraq “Liberation” Act which supposedly called for the US to support the opposition in that country, but really dedicated the US to regime change in Iraq which meant Saddam Hussein would be overthrown with the help of US funds to undermine his regime.
Voted for the Commodity Futures “Modernization” Act which basically created an “unregulated market” in derivatives and swaps.
Voted for the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 expands the “intelligence” apparatus by creating the position of the Director of National Intelligence, and the National Counterterrorism Center.
Voted for the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2015 which increases funding for the Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (anti-immigrant to the core), and the U.S. Secret Service.
Voted for the US-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014 which declares that the US is a “major strategic partner” of Israel and that the US military will give weapons to Israel and that the US and Israel should have “cyber cooperation.”
The case of Sanders sort of stealing a quote from Hugo Chavez.
His support for a strong (and powerful) military while saying he opposes “bureaucracy” which doesn’t make sense because a strong military/strong “defense” system engenders additional bureaucracy by its nature.
Voted for an extension of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which is “harshly neoliberal.”
Voted for a 2005 law which shielded gun manufacturers from lawsuits by gun violence victims (as noted in the New York Times).
Sanders saying something that had an echo of a “dog whistle” in comparing gun use in Vermont to gun use in Chicago and Los Angeles.
He only objected to Netanyahu speaking to Congress this year because it interfered with President Obama’s ability to craft US foreign policy.
He is apparently “anti-interventionist” but he is willing to use military force even if he claims it would be a “last resort.”
Voted for the horrid Authorization for Military Force (AUMF) in 2001 which has been used to justify targeting killings in the form of drone strikes.
Voted for a resolution that authorized “the president of the United States to conduct military air operations and missile strikes against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.”
He supports withdrawing from Afghanistan but claims that US soldiers are “doing a tremendous job under very difficult circumstances” which acts like the US occupation of Afghanistan has been going “well” and “fine” which ignores killings, sexual assault and acts of terror by the US military.
Supports a coup d’etat of the existing Chinese government.
Supporting sanctions against the Russian government.
He voiced support for capital bringing in the “cheapest possible labor.”
Sanders’s support for raised wages, even if implemented, which doesn’t change the fact that labor is still considered a commodity within the capitalist system.
Sanders called for restructuring of the debt in Puerto Rico but he did not challenge the status of Puerto Rico, or call for its independence.
Voted for a budget agreement in 2013 which included approval of the U.S.-Mexico Transboundary Hydrocarbons Agreement, an agreement that allows only the US to engage in exploitation of petroleum through drilling in a section of the Gulf of Mexico
Support of “humanitarian imperialism” by supporting the Bosnian war and mocking anti-imperialists in a 1999 speech while he was at it
Voted for six military construction funding bills.
Voted for the military intervention in Somalia.
Voted for sanctions on Iran and Libya twice.
Voted for three bills funding US proxies in Europe and elsewhere including Israel.
Voted for “defense spending” to fund US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq four times
Voted for the missile system in Europe.
Voted against closing Guantanamo bay in 2009.
Co-sponsored legislation in 2011 to “protect” U.S. citizens in Libya and possibly impose a no-fly-zone.
Voted for the bipartisan education reform bill this year (Every Child Achieves Act of 2015) which keeps in place much of the No Child Left Behind framework.
Supporting the neoliberal education program Race to the Top begun by the Obama administration.
In the 1990s, Sanders was ok with making the very small town of Sierra Blanca, Texas of a community a sacrifice zone for a nuclear dump!
He voted to extradite Assata Shakur from Cuba, to have her punished her on U.S soil
I would hope that Sanders supporters take this criticism and recognize it, rather than just dismissing it as some have done in response to my previous articles on Sanders, possibly by refusing to support Sanders because of this and engaging in grassroots organizing. However, even challenging Sanders on what I have pointed would a positive step, even though I don’t think that is enough.

That is all for now.

– Burkely

[SidDithers]

40. Seriously, you're presenting data in a way that's misleading. Whether that's intentional or not...

Now, to start, you know that I already have a very, very low opinion of your data analysis skills - going back to your thread about Iowa averages a couple of weeks ago. There, you took the averages of different data sets, and compared them to try to deduce a trend. A completely meaningless way of analysing the data.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=850222

Now here you are again, tryng to mislead us as to what the data shows. In this case it's lies of ommission, rather than deceptive averaging.

You state that Sanders beats Rubio by 4%, without telling the readers that the data presented is for the state of New Hampshire only. (Note that in that same New Hampshire only poll, Clinton also beats Rubio, though by only 1%)

You then state that Rubio beats Clinton by 1.6%, without telling the readers that the data presented is for a national poll. (Note that in that same national poll, Rubio also beats Sanders by 0.7%)

You presented those two unrelated data points as if they should be examined together.


Comparing different data sets presents a misleading picture. Is it that you don't understand that very simple point, or are you doing it deliberately in order to push an agenda?

Sid

[SunSeeker]

64. Excellent evisceration of this dishonest OP. nt

[DCBob]

66. Its intentional.

Its his shtick.

[Gothmog]

42. Can you explain how Sanders is viable in a general election contest?

I keep asking and have yet to see a good explanation as to how Sanders is viable in a general election contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may be spending another billion dollars. Sanders lacks the fund raising net work to compete in a general election. In addition, Sanders is very vulnerable to negative ads using the terms "socialist" and "socialism" and appears to lack the financial resources to combat such negative ads.

If you want people to take Sanders seriously as a general election candidate, then there needs to be a good explanation as to how Sanders could compete in such general election

[Armstead]

53. It's been given numerous times by me and others

If you assume that partisan Democrats and traditional Democratic constituencies would vote for Sanders on the party loyalty and the "anyone but GOP" theory, that automatically gives Sanders the same basic base as Clinton (Unless they decide to become PUMAs)

Neither Sanders nor Clinton will likely attract a significant number of partisan GOP voters, or conservative ideologues.

That leaves independents ("swing voters&quot . Many of them have the same frustrations and desire for real reform that Sanders reflects. And Sanders is creating enthusiasm, among many people who have otherwise been tuned out of politics.

Sanders has also proven his ability to win elections, and repeatedly get reelected, by huge margins in Vermont over the years....And while you will say "But Vermont is not typical of America" the response is that it is not Mars eitehr. Voters there are not all that different in their overall attitudes as voters anywhere.

While Clinton has the potential to win over swing voters too, she also has liabilities. Clinton fatigue, for example, is a real syndriome for many people.


So when you take away the low hanging fruit, and look at where the real competition for voters against the GOP will be, Sanders does have many assets and strengths. No guarantee, obviously, but very competitive (and Clinton is no sure winner either).

[Gothmog]

58. You are ignoring the role of money in the campaign

If you think that the above explanation means that anyone thinks that Sanders is viable in a general election, then you are wrong. Some candidates are better able to raise the funds necessary to complete. President Obama blew everyone away in 2008 with his small donor fundraising efforts and that made it clear that he was electable. Jeb is trying to do the same on the GOP side with his $100 million super pac.

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

Harvard University professor Lawrence Lessig, who founded a Super Pac to end Super Pacs, said Sanders’ renouncing Super Pacs is tantamount to “bringing a knife to a gunfight”.

“I regret the fact the Bernie Sanders has embraced the idea that he’s going to live life like the Vermont snow, as pure as he possibly can, while he runs for president, because it weakens his chances – and he’s an enormously important progressive voice,” Lessig said.

President Obama was against super pacs in 2012 but had to use one to keep the race close. I do not like super pacs but any Democratic candidate who wants to be viable has to use a super pac

Again, the use of polls that show matchups in the general election are somewhat meaningless unless you have a viable candidate who can compete in the general election and that includes having funds to compete

[firebrand80]

3. Interesting food for thought, but

The Rubio we see now is likely different than the Rubio we would see in the GE. The GOP primary is looking like it's going to go on for a while. Rubio is facing some candidates who won't think twice about going "scorched earth." I think he's going to get pulled to the right on issues like immigration, and the GOP as a brand is going to come out with a black eye with a lot of minority groups. It's going to make him less viable in the GE.

On the other hand, the Hillary we see now is what we'll get. She's moved as far left as she's needed to, and it doesn't look like she's going to face a tough fight.

[Gothmog]

43. Jeb! has a good opposition research file on Rubio that will be used before NH

Stories about Rubio's mistress are already being circulated

[firebrand80]

46. I heard that mistress story was nonsense

Jeb's people started a whisper campaign to try to get Rubio not to run

Who knows, we shall see

[Gothmog]

56. It is still a little early to leak all of the good oppo research

As you noted, we shall see

[Attorney in Texas]

7. If you are so sure, there is money to be had in the betting markets for people with your confidence

that Rubio isn't the likeliest nominee. He's currently handicapped at more than twice as likely as Trump or Cruz, about 4 times as likely as Bush, and 6 times as likely as Christie (and no other candidate is given much of a chance at all).

If you know better, here is your chance to make your fortune.

[LexVegas]

8. Interesting. What do the same handicappers say about Sanders odds? nt

[Attorney in Texas]

10. Not much. I don't think anyone disputes that Clinton is the favorite and Sanders is the underdog.

[brooklynite]

37. 6% to win the nomination; 2% to win the GE

[brush]

20. Opposition research will bite Rubio

You can bet Trump's, Cruz's and Bush's campaigns are just waiting for the right time to leak the details of Rubio's affair, and also his profligate spending of state money, to the general public.

It won't be Rubio.

[Attorney in Texas]

22. There are definitely lots of rumors, but none of that smoke has lead to any flames so far (I hope

Rubio flames out -- I think he would be the strongest general election candidate of those who are polling above the Kasich-Christie level of nominal support which may qualify them for VP consideration but will not get them nominated for the top of the ticket).

[bigwillq]

13. Hello.

Welcome to DU!

[sufrommich]

6. Cruz is more likely than Rubio and a 3rd party

run by Trump is more than likely.

[Attorney in Texas]

9. Cruz would be the most right-wing candidate ever nominated and he's pretty despised in his own party

That could be a roadblock.

[sufrommich]

18. He's running a carefully crafted campaign,he's ahead in Iowa,he appeals to

both the christian conservative and libertarian wing of the GOP and the GOP establishment has clearly lost control of their party.

[Attorney in Texas]

21. Agreed on all points. He still might be too far right and too disliked to win (at least I hope so)

[sufrommich]

24. If Trump has proved anything,it's that the

republican base is to the right of the republican establishment,they encouraged that when it benefited them and now it's going to bite them in the ass and possibly destroy their party. The nominee won't be an establishment figure this time around,that probably was set in stone when Romney lost in 2008.

[Attorney in Texas]

30. Maybe. Certainly the most enthusiasm is well right of the establishment. If Paul Ryan is the current

embodiment of the Republican establishment, I'm not sure if more actual Republican voters are to his right versus how many are to his left. I tend to believe that Cruz and Trump have a ceiling that is below the level of support necessary to win the nomination, but that seems like an unknowable uncertainty.

[Kentonio]

51. I think a Trump 3rd party run is too much like wishful thinking on our part.

It'd be so good though.

[sufrommich]

61. It could be wishful thinking. I'm depending on

Trump's massive ego to compel him to run.

[DCBob]

12. Do you use the same misleading dishonest tactics as an attorney?

If so, you should be disbarred.

[Attorney in Texas]

15. Do you mean the tactic of making a statement and supporting it with evidence? Then, yes.

[DCBob]

19. Your "evidence" is suspect.

But feel free to continue.. free speech and all.

[Attorney in Texas]

23. You have links to the current polling, links to the polling aggregation and links to betting markets

I'm not sure what further citation I could provide, but if you have something in mind, feel free to let me know.

[JaneyVee]

17. Margin of error both ways.

There's a reason MOEs exist.

[Attorney in Texas]

26. Polls have margins of error. Poll aggregation and betting markets do not come with a margin of error

built into the data.

All I can say is that Sanders leads Rubio by 4% in the most recent poll and leads him in all the recent polls included in the Real Clear Politics poll aggregator, but Rubio leads Clinton by 3% in the most recent poll and he leads her in 4 out 6 of the most recent polls in the aggregator and Rubio also has an average lead over Clinton (so he leads my the number of polls, leads by the average of polls, and leads in the most recent poll).

There is links to all of it for you to double check for yourself.

PS - the margin by which Sanders outperforms Clinton in head-to-head polling versus Cruz is even more dramatic than the advantage shown in the head-to-head polling versus Rubio.

[Hepburn]

25. We MUST get together behind Sanders.

As time passes, it becomes more and more clear the Hillary Clinton will not win the GE. If we Dems nominate her, we are risking, gawd forbid, a Prez Rubio, Cruz or tRump.

The hand-writing is on the wall...we NEED Bernie Sanders for many reasons...most of all, IMO, to keep a RW lunatic out of the WH.

JMHO

[MaggieD]

27. More "we must nominate Sanders" baloney?

We aren't nominating Sanders. Not going to happen. I am not sure which HRC supporters you think buy into this irrational fear you're trying to spread, but it's not going to work.

[Godhumor]

28. You're comparing NH for Bernie vs GE for Clinton. Easy way to ignore Sanders is down vs Rubio, too

You know, the aggregate of -0.7 nationally for Sanders vs Rubio.

[Attorney in Texas]

32. I'm giving you links to all of the polling which is reported on Real Clear Politics and all of it is

included in the RCP poll aggregator.

If you have a problem with the RCP poll aggregator, I don't know what to tell you. It's not perfect, but polling (especially polling more than 7 weeks before the first vote is cast) is imperfect by its nature.

[Godhumor]

33. You didn't give links to the aggregator

Go look up national head to head Rubio vs Sanders instead of NH.

[Attorney in Texas]

36. The link on the words "consistent trend" in the phrase "this most recent poll result is part of a

consistent trend" is a link to the aggregator.

[Godhumor]

38. You linked to NH for Bernie not National

National doesn't tell the same story.

[AngryParakeet]

29. Your kidding, right?

Sanders is beating Rubio by 4 in New Hampshire, Hillary is down 1.5 against Rubio nationally. Its not comparable. Not sure if your bieng intentionally misleading or just made a mistake but this thread isnt an accurate comparison.

[Godhumor]

31. Yeah, said the same thing in post 28

Still hasn't stopped the recs from coming in, though.

Any port in a storm, I guess.

[cosmicone]

34. I suggest an even more dramatic spread...

Compare Sanders v Rubio in Burlington, VT and then contrast that with Clinton v Rubio in Miami, FL

That would certainly make many Hillary supporters dump her and vote for Sanders.

[brooklynite]

35. Two reasons why those numbers don't bother me...

...I accept that the GE will be close. What that tells me is:

1. the race is close enough that Clinton can win, because she'll have the organizational skill, the financial resources to run against a Republican spending billions, and a mainstream record that will appeal to enough independents and moderate Republicans to win.

2. the race is close enough that Sanders can lose, because he hasn't yet be subjected to opposition targeting by the Republicans, who will attack his self-avowed socialism, his "tax and spend" policy prescriptions and his unwillingness to address the national security issues that will still be on voters minds.

[Godhumor]

41. See post 28. OP didn't post an apples to apples comparison

Bernie beats Rubio in NH! Clinton is down nationally! It's the same thing!

[Blue_Adept]

39. Party candidate matchups are pointless at this stage

Really, even if the Dem candidate was up by 30 points over every Rep candidate, it wouldn't matter.

Most people aren't truly viewing it that way at this point, since there's so much uncertainty within both primaries as to who is going to win.

While poll shaming each other within the Dem side is pretty pathetic, this is even worse.

[Godhumor]

44. So you planning on fixing the OP at some point?

Just curious.

[Godhumor]

47. Here I can fix OP for you, since you've gone silent. Vs Rubio both Dem. candidates are neck and neck

Really not that hard to do.

[FloridaBlues]

48. Seriously he's double digits behind tell me again how he gets to beat anybody

[Android3.14]

50. Can you make a smart strategic decision?

We all (and by "we", I mean those of us with the ability to make smart decisions) recognize that Sanders has as good a chance of winning the GE as Clinton. A vote for Sanders in the primary constitutes no more of a risk of losing the White House than would a vote for Clinton.

We all know that Sanders represents humane values, leadership and integrity that we would be proud to see in our governance.

If Bernie wins the primary, then we have an energized base, a wrecked-split-depressed GOP and high voter turnout for Democrats in the general. If Clinton wins the primary, we have a dejected base, low Democratic Party turnout and a highly motivated GOP.

A Sanders nominee has the best chance of not only keeping the White House, but of taking the Senate and possibly the House.

The Swarm is "other" motivated. I'm not talking about all Clinton supporters. The mean-spirited people ridiculing Sanders, insulting his supporters and refusing to defend their support of Clinton-over-Sanders are dealing with issues that are best left for professionals. My suspicion is that most of them are from those two weird sites that are obsessed with the thinkers here. My sense is that they recognized early on that DU would see the opportunity for real change and go for Bernie. The Swarm made a decision (conscious or unconscious) to be as mean as possible and stir up the feces by posting provocative lies and insults in order to scratch that codependent itch that is their pathology.

It is obvious most of us have become aware of the warped selfish strategy and I watch with such satisfaction as posts from The Swarm sink into obscurity as we decline to kick their threads by participating in the poo flinging.

I encourage people to make the strategic choice to vote for Sanders in the Primary, and vote for the nominee (hopefully Sanders, but Clinton if necessary) in the general, but to avoid any fights/recs/kicks with OPs that start out as pro-Clinton and abandon threads/subthreads with people who are incapable of reasoned participation.

[Godhumor]

57. Own up and self delete or fix the OP and links. Seriously.

Or are the recs that important?

Again, you're comparing NH for Bernie's head to head to National for Clinton's. From your other responses, this seems like a mistake and not willful on your part. Just swallow your pride, edit, say my bad and move on. We've all had to do that at one point or another.

[MeNMyVolt]

60. +1

[brooklynite]

62. Am I to understand Sanders supporters now trust "corporate" polls?

[SunSeeker]

65. Utterly dishonest OP. No wonder you renamed the links. That's the tell.

It is really obnoxious to rename links so people don't know what they are clicking to--it also hides the fact that you used a NH poll for the numbers for Bernie beating Rubio (which Hillary also does in that poll), but misleadingly went to an outlier national poll for the numbers for Rubio beating Hillary (even though Rubio also beats Bernie in that national poll). Why didn't you just use one poll or the other? Both polls had numbers for both candidates.

You CHOSE to compare apples to oranges, and went out of your way to try to hide it by renaming the links in your OP so it was not obvious at a glance what polls you were refering to.

You have been repeatedly apprised of why your OP is misleading (see, e.g. Post 40). You should self delete.

[taught_me_patience]

67. Bullshit misleading OP that should be deleted.

Have some honor.

[Flying Squirrel]

68. I put no trust in predictwise

And I'm a Sanders supporter. If I believed they were right about Rubio, I'd have to believe they're also right about Hillary. They were wrong in 2007-8 and didn't put Obama over a 50% chance of getting the nomination till after Super Tuesday. They're great at predicting stuff once it's a lot closer to the actual event..