Who's More Likely to Beat Donald Trump ????? Hillary or Bernie?

[_subgenius]

Multiple links to the same poll doesn't make multiple polls.

agreed, that's why there is more than one poll listed.
and likewise...6% is not "soundly beating", especially when it was double that a week ago.

[_EAllusion]

In a presidential election, 6.4% is a quasi-landslide and would result in a lopsided electoral college result. For perpsective, Obama beat McCain by 7%.

One week ago, the RCP average was 6.2%. It's gone up .2%. At no point since the primaries have started has Clinton polled 13% more than Trump in an average of polls. The peak gap was in March at 11.4%.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDEdFxUZ01s

[_moksha]

I'm not sure Trump can be stopped. He is like a freight train careening down a steep hill and that measly ski jump posed by the general election will only send Trump to even greater heights.

So you are saying that the coming of Trump will be an inevitable extinction level event?

What if Bernie dons a pair of blue and red colored long johns and creates a vortex by waving his finger in a synchronized pattern?

[_Brackite]

I really don't believe that Bernie would more likely be able to defeat Trump than Hillary. Hillary has managed to win over Bernie in North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, and Ohio. All four of these States should be battleground States during the 2016 Presidential election. Colorado should also be a battleground State during the 2016 Presidential election, and Latinos in Colorado and Florida will likely come out strong for Hillary this November election.

More Latinos Seek Citizenship to Vote Against Trump

Immigrants Seeking Citizenship to Vote Against Trump

Trump’s candidacy sparking ‘a surge’ in citizenship, voter applications

Hispanic voter registration spikes

Democrats all in on Hispanics vs. Trump

'Surveys indicate Trump has enormous ground to make up with Hispanics as he shifts toward the general election. In a recent poll by America’s Voice and Latino Decisions, 79 percent of Hispanics said they had an unfavorable view of the businessman, who famously launched his campaign talking about Mexico sending criminals into the U.S. '

[_Kevin Graham]

I really don't believe that Bernie would more likely be able to defeat Trump than Hillary. Hillary has managed to win over Bernie in North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, and Ohio.

None of this matters because Sanders wouldn't be running against Clinton in the general election he would be running against Trump. And how many independents were permitted to vote in those primaries? Sanders gets roughly two thirds of them.

The most recent polls in Florida show Sanders beats Trump +2 compared to Clinton's +1.

In Ohio Sanders beats Trump +2 and Hillary loses to Trump in Ohio -4.

The most recent poll out of North Carolina has Sanders beating Trump +18 and that same poll had Hillary beating Trump +9.

So even if you want to focus on swing states, Sanders is still the much stronger candidate.

[_subgenius]

So you are saying that the coming of Trump will be an inevitable extinction level event?
The current school of politics is certainly in the winter of its discontent
What if Bernie dons a pair of blue and red colored long johns and creates a vortex by waving his finger in a synchronized pattern?
then the spittle from his lip and wisp of his hair will create The Perfect Storm in which fantasy will finally prevail over reality and the Satori will be forever lost

[_EAllusion]

Kevin -

The Quinnipiac poll you are citing produced some goofy results based on some frankly odd an unlikely assumptions about how to construct a representative sample. This has been much talked about. For example,

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... where.html

Basically, they think minority representation in the voting pool is going to crater because Obama isn't running. So their polling sample includes a lot less minorities. There's some good reason to think that might not be the case, especially where Latinos are concerned. Their assumptions are different than others, and this is why the poll is an outlier. It happens to be the case that Clinton is more hurt by this assumption than Sanders, but it is broadly true that Sanders outpolls Clinton nationally in head to head matchups regardless. Again, it's difficult to read too much into that though.

[_honorentheos]

Kevin -

The Quinnipiac poll you are citing produced some goofy results based on some frankly odd an unlikely assumptions about how to construct a representative sample. This has been much talked about. For example,

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... where.html

Basically, they think minority representation in the voting pool is going to crater because Obama isn't running. So their polling sample includes a lot less minorities. There's some good reason to think that might not be the case, especially where Latinos are concerned. Their assumptions are different than others, and this is why the poll is an outlier. It happens to be the case that Clinton is more hurt by this assumption than Sanders, but it is broadly true that Sanders outpolls Clinton nationally in head to head matchups regardless. Again, it's difficult to read too much into that though.

This subject has become the discussion in so many threads I forget where it was discussed here recently. But I don't think it can be underestimated that most people in the US know the central negative campaign messages about the two likely nominees - Clinton being untrustworthy, Trump being an arrogant underqualified non-conservative bigot - while Sanders isn't that well known nor has he had a major negative messaging campaign aimed at him yet. National poll results comparing Clinton to Trump reflect that condition. Sanders v. Trump polls do not because they can't unless/until such negative campaign messaging has had time to permeate the electorates conscious.

[_subgenius]

None of this matters because Sanders wouldn't be running against Clinton in the general election he would be running against Trump.

except for the whole he-is-not-getting-the-party-nomination-and-running-as-an-independent-is-a-guarantee-for-him-and-Hillary-to-lose-the-genreal-election (see also Ross Perot '92 and Ralph Nader '00)

[_EAllusion]

A very large % of the general public considers Clinton deceptive and untrustworthy. I'm one of those people. However, I'm positive that the reasons I am suspicious of Clinton don't match up with the average person's thoughts. I think the general public is just vaguely aware that Clinton has a reputation for dishonesty (in part inherited from her slick husband) and is associated with scandal. The opinions of people like me influence the opinions of people like them. I think if you ask people why they think Clinton is dishonest, aside from incoherent bluffing, you'll probably get a half-informed reference to the most recent email scandal or Benghazi. I'm skeptical more than 1 in 10 people can accurately describe what occurred in the Whitewater scandal, for example. Most people simply do not remember "vast right-wing conspiracy" Clinton. All that lingers is a sense that she's dishonest. Survey after survey indicates this is the level of memory and knowledge most people operate on.

If you follow the yahoo news feed or anything like that, you'll notice that every week there are conservative publications introducing a new scandal or new development in scandal associated with Clinton. And almost all of it is misleading at best and straight lies at worst. This is just fuel for the fire of the strategy against Clinton that seems to work. This is how negative campaigning at its finest works, in fact. You take a character flaw the public will buy into and magnify it with a cloud of doubt. And this is just one avenue of attack that has been relentless against Clinton this entire campaign.

Sanders hasn't had anything like this happen to him. He has vulnerabilities. There's clearly a calculation out there to avoid it.