Bernie also runs the best against the GOP.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/poll...piac-23675

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-event...aseID=2321

In the Democratic race nationwide, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has 44 percent, with Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont at 42 percent, and 11 percent undecided. This compares to a 61 - 30 percent Clinton lead in a December 22 survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll.

Sanders and Rubio are the strongest candidates in general election matchups. If former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg runs, he hurts Sanders more than he hurts any of the top Republican contenders.

Among Republicans, 30 percent say they "would definitely not support" Trump, while 15 percent say no to Cruz and 7 percent say no to Rubio.

Sanders has the highest favorability rating among top candidates, while Trump has the lowest.

"Democrats nationwide are feeling the Bern as Sen. Bernie Sanders closes a 31-point gap to tie Secretary Hillary Clinton," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

"And despite the Iowa setback, Donald Trump is way ahead of his GOP opponents."

"But that's not the whole story nine months before Election Day. In mano a mano, or mano a womano, face-offs with all contenders, Sanders and Rubio would be the candidates left standing," Malloy added.

"Although he is characterized as the New York counterpunch to Trump, Mayor Mike Bloomberg is more the nemesis of Bernie than he is of Donald."

General election matchups among American voters show:
Clinton tops Trump 46 - 41 percent;
Clinton ties Cruz 45 - 45 percent;
Clinton trails Rubio 48 - 41 percent;
Sanders thumps Trump 49 - 39 percent;
Sanders edges Cruz 46 - 42 percent;
Sanders and Rubio are tied 43 - 43 percent.

If Bloomberg runs as a third party candidate in some contests, results are:
Sanders at 35 percent, with Trump at 36 percent and Bloomberg at 15 percent;
Sanders at 37 percent, with Cruz at 36 percent and Bloomberg at 15 percent.
Sanders has a 44 - 35 percent favorability rating among American voters. Ratings for other candidates are:
Negative 39 - 56 percent for Clinton;
Negative 34 - 59 percent for Trump;
Negative 36 - 42 percent for Cruz;
Positive 42 - 28 percent for Rubio;
Negative 20 - 25 percent for Bloomberg with 53 percent who don't know enough about him to form an opinion.

Bernie's problem, in relation to Hillary, is the state by state set up over the next few weeks after NH. I don't see him challenging in SC, Nevada, Virginia, Texas, or anywhere in the SEC. Hillary is likely to put it away before it gets to his more favorable states.

As for the general election, those numbers are useless at this point.

So our upcoming POTUS will be one of the following five, barring a major upset out of nowhere: Bernie, Trump, Hillary, Cruz or Rubio.

Oh my.

There is no choice there for someone who's fiscally conservative, socially tolerant and supports a largely non-interventionist foreign policy (a.k.a. "classic liberal"). None.

Gary Johnson is the obvious choice for me, but I'll need to see who the Final Two are. If it's like a Sanders vs. Rubio contest, I'll have to throw a vote at Rubio. If it's Hillary vs. Trump, I may have to stomach a Hillary vote.

So once again, I'm voting "against" candidates as opposed to "for" a candidate.

(02-05-2016 09:06 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  So our upcoming POTUS will be one of the following five, barring a major upset out of nowhere: Bernie, Trump, Hillary, Cruz or Rubio.

Oh my.

There is no choice there for someone who's fiscally conservative, socially tolerant and supports a largely non-interventionist foreign policy (a.k.a. "classic liberal"). None.

Gary Johnson is the obvious choice for me, but I'll need to see who the Final Two are. If it's like a Sanders vs. Rubio contest, I'll have to throw a vote at Rubio. If it's Hillary vs. Trump, I may have to stomach a Hillary vote.

So once again, I'm voting "against" candidates as opposed to "for" a candidate.

Take another look at Cruz. He checks those boxes.

(02-05-2016 09:04 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Bernie's problem, in relation to Hillary, is the state by state set up over the next few weeks after NH. I don't see him challenging in SC, Nevada, Virginia, Texas, or anywhere in the SEC. Hillary is likely to put it away before it gets to his more favorable states.

As for the general election, those numbers are useless at this point.

Well, there's 11 days after New Hampshire for Bernie to make up ground in Nevada, then a week before South Carolina. That's actually quite a bit of time to make up ground. I can tell you the Bernie campaign is taking Nevada and South Carolina very seriously, flooding the media and moving ground forces from Iowa there. Nevada has a maddeningly low amount of polls but from what I understand it's about a 15 point deficit. I think it could be close by Feb 20. South Carolina is 20-25 points and a much tougher slog. Former NAACP head Ben Jealous just endorsed him and he's assembled a good black surrogate contingent to stump with. I don't know if he can close the gap entirely but if he gets it within single digits it won't look so bad.

Then there's Super Tuesday. The SEC states are tough but I saw an Arkansas (whiter than the other SEC states) poll with a 5 point spread a few weeks ago. He can win Colorado, Massachussetts, Minnesota and Vermont (obviously). I think he can go 5-6 or 4-7 on that day, so it won't be all that bad. In that case, this won't be over for months.

Cruz is not socially tolerant.

(02-05-2016 09:17 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 09:04 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Bernie's problem, in relation to Hillary, is the state by state set up over the next few weeks after NH. I don't see him challenging in SC, Nevada, Virginia, Texas, or anywhere in the SEC. Hillary is likely to put it away before it gets to his more favorable states.

As for the general election, those numbers are useless at this point.

Well, there's 11 days after New Hampshire for Bernie to make up ground in Nevada, then a week before South Carolina. That's actually quite a bit of time to make up ground. I can tell you the Bernie campaign is taking Nevada and South Carolina very seriously, flooding the media and moving ground forces from Iowa there. Nevada has a maddeningly low amount of polls but from what I understand it's about a 15 point deficit. I think it could be close by Feb 20. South Carolina is 20-25 points and a much tougher slog. Former NAACP head Ben Jealous just endorsed him and he's assembled a good black surrogate contingent to stump with. I don't know if he can close the gap entirely but if he gets it within single digits it won't look so bad.

Then there's Super Tuesday. The SEC states are tough but I saw an Arkansas (whiter than the other SEC states) poll with a 5 point spread a few weeks ago. He can win Colorado, Massachussetts, Minnesota and Vermont (obviously). I think he can go 5-6 or 4-7 on that day, so it won't be all that bad. In that case, this won't be over for months.

Yeah, he'll win Vermont and Mass along with perhaps Minnesota and Colorado, but the delegate edge will be huge unless he makes up a lot of ground. He needs the black vote to coalesce around him. Jealous is a good start, but he needs to get a lot more.

(02-05-2016 09:06 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  So our upcoming POTUS will be one of the following five, barring a major upset out of nowhere: Bernie, Trump, Hillary, Cruz or Rubio.

Oh my.

There is no choice there for someone who's fiscally conservative, socially tolerant and supports a largely non-interventionist foreign policy (a.k.a. "classic liberal"). None.

Gary Johnson is the obvious choice for me, but I'll need to see who the Final Two are. If it's like a Sanders vs. Rubio contest, I'll have to throw a vote at Rubio. If it's Hillary vs. Trump, I may have to stomach a Hillary vote.

So once again, I'm voting "against" candidates as opposed to "for" a candidate.

You would vote for Hillary? She performed more foreign intervention as SOS than most presidents do in two terms. The entire middle east is on fire due to Hillary's intervention. All she did was to meddle. Hell, at least Iraq, Afganistan, and the middle east were at peace after Bush got done. Then along comes Hillary and she sets the entire region on fire.

I know he'd likely accomplish neither, but Trump wanting to build a huge (costly, ineffective) wall along the border and ban Muslim travel in/out of the US doesn't sit well with me. I know we need to keep America top of mind and not kowtow to foreign interests, but Trump on the world stage worries me. If he wants to convince me that he'll be diplomatic and presidential in the presence of world leaders with differing opinions that his own, he'll need to start demonstrating it during his campaign.

Remember I'm talking about lessor of evils here. I'm really having trouble developing warm feelings for any of these five candidates.

(02-05-2016 09:22 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Hell, at least Iraq, Afganistan, and the middle east were at peace after Bush got done. Then along comes Hillary and she sets the entire region on fire.

Iraq was at "peace?" The violence waned at the end, but that's because Bush signed a status of forces agreement to withdraw all troops by 2011, so they just had to wait. I'm no fan of Hillary's intervention in Libya and elsewhere, but to pin it all on her when Bush began this whole mess is disingenuous. ******* ISIS is led by pissed off Ba'ath leaders who were thrown into the wilderness by Rumsfeld thanks to his brilliant decision to disband the Iraqi army.

(02-05-2016 09:04 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Bernie's problem, in relation to Hillary, is the state by state set up over the next few weeks after NH. I don't see him challenging in SC, Nevada, Virginia, Texas, or anywhere in the SEC. Hillary is likely to put it away before it gets to his more favorable states.

As for the general election, those numbers are useless at this point.

This. He's going to lose race after race in those states and people will start to lose their enthusiasm for him.

I honestly kind of hate the way primaries are because we let a handful of states set the momentum for a national race. I wish all primaries were done on the same day like the normal election so people aren't influenced by the results in a state that has little to no resemblance to the issues facing their own.

So the criminal is feeling The Bum.

(02-05-2016 09:40 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 09:04 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Bernie's problem, in relation to Hillary, is the state by state set up over the next few weeks after NH. I don't see him challenging in SC, Nevada, Virginia, Texas, or anywhere in the SEC. Hillary is likely to put it away before it gets to his more favorable states.

As for the general election, those numbers are useless at this point.

This. He's going to lose race after race in those states and people will start to lose their enthusiasm for him.

I honestly kind of hate the way primaries are because we let a handful of states set the momentum for a national race. I wish all primaries were done on the same day like the normal election so people aren't influenced by the results in a state that has little to no resemblance to the issues facing their own.

I like the state by state setup because it lets lesser funded candidates compete by having to only focus on a single state. If it was a national election, it would just be a matter of who won the favor of billionaires to run national ads.

By April 1, most of America will have forgotten there ever was a Bernie Sanders.

(02-05-2016 09:35 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 09:22 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Hell, at least Iraq, Afganistan, and the middle east were at peace after Bush got done. Then along comes Hillary and she sets the entire region on fire.

Iraq was at "peace?" The violence waned at the end, but that's because Bush signed a status of forces agreement to withdraw all troops by 2011, so they just had to wait. I'm no fan of Hillary's intervention in Libya and elsewhere, but to pin it all on her when Bush began this whole mess is disingenuous. ******* ISIS is led by pissed off Ba'ath leaders who were thrown into the wilderness by Rumsfeld thanks to his brilliant decision to disband the Iraqi army.

Uh no. It was at peace because we went in there with a surge, kicked ass and killed the mofos, and left it a better place than it had been.

Then Obama comes in, tries to take credit for how well the situation is, and it all goes to hell.

You cant rewrite history. You liberals were butthurt over the Bush surge, but the surge worked. You guys take control and run it the way you see fit, and it goes to hell. Then you go back and try to blame Bush.

Should've never went into Iraq in the first place. Saddam was no direct threat to us and, while he was strongarm thug, kept the ragtag jihadi groups down (unlike now).

To Trump's credit, he's said the same.

(02-05-2016 09:19 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Cruz is not socially tolerant.

Holy crap this is gold. GOLD JERRY.

"Socially tolerant." Is this a new SJW term that you coined?

(02-05-2016 09:46 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 09:35 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 09:22 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Hell, at least Iraq, Afganistan, and the middle east were at peace after Bush got done. Then along comes Hillary and she sets the entire region on fire.

Iraq was at "peace?" The violence waned at the end, but that's because Bush signed a status of forces agreement to withdraw all troops by 2011, so they just had to wait. I'm no fan of Hillary's intervention in Libya and elsewhere, but to pin it all on her when Bush began this whole mess is disingenuous. ******* ISIS is led by pissed off Ba'ath leaders who were thrown into the wilderness by Rumsfeld thanks to his brilliant decision to disband the Iraqi army.

Uh no. It was at peace because we went in there with a surge, kicked ass and killed the mofos, and left it a better place than it had been.

Then Obama comes in, tries to take credit for how well the situation is, and it all goes to hell.

You cant rewrite history. You liberals were butthurt over the Bush surge, but the surge worked. You guys take control and run it the way you see fit, and it goes to hell. Then you go back and try to blame Bush.

Oh all the mofos were killed were they???

(02-05-2016 09:59 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 09:19 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Cruz is not socially tolerant.

Holy crap this is gold. GOLD JERRY.

"Socially tolerant." Is this a new SJW term that you coined?

Actually it was coined a couple of posts up from me.

(02-05-2016 09:19 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Cruz is not socially tolerant.

He is pro 10th amendment. Social issues are state issues. I believe he is the only candidate left, now that Rand is out, that will allow states to legalize marijuana and he is the only one left that opposes warrantless surveillance.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk