With the recent polls showing a Clinton vs. Trump matchup as being a toss-up and Sanders holding a 14% lead over Trump if they are the candidates, why would they not consider Sanders instead since he appears to have the better shot at winning? I believe that even Sanders would be a better choice than the other two, and apparently so do millions of others.

Despite all the fuss about Superdelegates, Clinton has 3 million more votes than Sanders. That earns Clinton the nomination. Polls are too fluid to make the kinds of claims Sanders is making. Current events can also put the focus on one candidate.

I think some of Sanders poll numbers are like the poll numbers for the back up Quarterback. The backup QB is always the most popular player on the team when the team is struggling.

 

The way you will be able to know that Clinton is actually worried that she could lose, she will beg Bernie to be on the ticket with her as her VP.

I also saw somewhere Joe Biden has been taking a lot of Comp time off and using a few vacation days. Has to get those days off in while he can, because he still may have to run for President if Hillary continues to slide or God forbid gets indicted.

Nope! People want to change or get rid of the super delegates? That's fine, but not in the middle of an election, the change should have happened 2-3 years ago.

 

Plus as has already been pointed out, he is about 3 million votes behind.

Sanders supporters will elect Trump. This Democratic saga is gonna get crazy. And its funny how the Dems were laughing how the Republican convention was gonna be all violence and craziness. My how the tables have turned....

The best part bout what is finally being covered by the media is what I've been saying on here for weeks. All the media want to push was division in the GOP which there way but finally they are covering the fact the division in the Democrat party is equal to or greater than the GOP.

The best part bout what is finally being covered by the media is what I've been saying on here for weeks. All the media want to push was division in the GOP which there way but finally they are covering the fact the division in the Democrat party is equal to or greater than the GOP.

 

There's no denying that Trump vs. the rest of the GOP was way more compelling television over the last eight months. That's why they covered it. Sanders v. Clinton became interesting after the GOP was sorted out.

There's no denying that Trump vs. the rest of the GOP was way more compelling television over the last eight months. That's why they covered it. Sanders v. Clinton became interesting after the GOP was sorted out.

 

No doubt.

With the recent polls showing a Clinton vs. Trump matchup as being a toss-up and Sanders holding a 14% lead over Trump if they are the candidates, why would they not consider Sanders instead since he appears to have the better shot at winning? I believe that even Sanders would be a better choice than the other two, and apparently so do millions of others.

 

While I don't believe the process should be changed mid-stream, something you point out in your post is interesting. Why is it that Hillary and Trump are running within the margin of error of one another, but Sanders dominates Trump in a head-to-head match-up? What does this mean?

There's no denying that Trump vs. the rest of the GOP was way more compelling television over the last eight months. That's why they covered it. Sanders v. Clinton became interesting after the GOP was sorted out.

 

I can't argue against Trump being more compelling tv. But one thing that was funny is the fact people in the GOP including Trump have been saying the Bernie crowd has a tendency to get violent or incite violence. When it happens to Hillary supporters the media covers and blames Bernie , prior it was on those racist gop guys.

While I don't believe the process should be changed mid-stream, something you point out in your post is interesting. Why is it that Hillary and Trump are running within the margin of error of one another, but Sanders dominates Trump in a head-to-head match-up? What does this mean?

 

It tells me that Independent voters are a lot more likely to vote for Sanders than Clinton in a contest against Trump. It also makes me believe that Clinton may be the only Democrat that Trump could possibly beat, but Trump may have also been the only Republican candidate that Clinton could beat.:scared:

This will be part of another thread I am going to start but I will point it out here as well. Hillary was closer to beating Obama at this point than Sanders is to beating Hillary. Hillary had more delegates and the margin was closer and yet she conceded. I argue that Bernie is out for himself and his own agenda more than any other candidate in this entire election except for perhaps Cruz

This will be part of another thread I am going to start but I will point it out here as well. Hillary was closer to beating Obama at this point than Sanders is to beating Hillary. Hillary had more delegates and the margin was closer and yet she conceded. I argue that Bernie is out for himself and his own agenda more than any other candidate in this entire election except for perhaps Cruz

 

You may be right about Bernie, although Clinton and Trump are probably right there with him.

This will be part of another thread I am going to start but I will point it out here as well. Hillary was closer to beating Obama at this point than Sanders is to beating Hillary. Hillary had more delegates and the margin was closer and yet she conceded. I argue that Bernie is out for himself and his own agenda more than any other candidate in this entire election except for perhaps Cruz

 

Out for himself or principle? Maybe his thought is that the Ds are too dirty by compromise and wants to bring them back to their ideals in the way some in the tea party do with the Rs. Could be that Sanders could be the start of a very vocal internal movement within the Democratic party. Pull left or we will hurt your chances type thing. Kind of like the tea party hardliners