Yeah, that hasn't changed. You probably didn't know, it can be hard to miss the basics when you buy into slanted MSM coverage – don't worry about it, it happens, why do you think there's a competitive primary? – but those are the facts. Matthew Yglesias on Vox:
New poll showing Clinton beating everyone is reported as bad news for Hillary
A new Quinnipiac University poll shows Hillary Clinton coasting to a crushing victory in a three-way race against Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden, winning 45 percent of the vote, compared with 22 for Sanders and 18 for Biden.
And the good news for Clinton doesn't stop there. [...]
So how did the media report this poll showing that if the election were held this week Hillary Clinton would win? Well, as bad news for Hillary Clinton!
Bloomberg: "Biden More Competitive Than Clinton Against Leading Republicans: Poll"
Politico: "Poll: Biden outperforms Hillary in general election; Trump leads GOP field"
Time: "Voters open to Joe Biden presidential bid in new poll"
And yeah, I get it; we all love a horserace, which is probably why there's dumb stuff like this...
Polls Chart Shows Bernie Sanders Set To Win Democratic Primary
...on the aptly-named wreck list. Not to throw stones; we've all been there. Take it from the guy still to this day entirely mortified over having authored this mess, John Edwards winning strategy, on the occasion of my candidate's having opted into public financing of his campaign. That shit – and it was shit, dear sweet Lord was it ever – made the wreck list too. I believed it at the time, but facts are awkward things, as they say.
But back to Hillary. Has she lost overall support over the last two months? Yes. Nobody will argue with that, nobody tethered to the surly bonds of reality at least. The question is what it means.
Will she lose the Democratic primary like she did in 2008? No. There's no Barack Obama this time around, which is probably why most of his campaign staff are working for her.
Can Senator Bernie Sanders – pardon, BERNIE! – pull an Obama-style upset? Probably not. Note that he hasn't been subjected to the kind of attack he'd be getting if Team Clinton considered him a threat.
I don't like going negative, but as a thought experiment, what would an attack on Sanders look like? Something like this....
...and we're just getting started.
A clear majority of Americans will not vote for a socialist. This idea that the word has lost its potency due to overuse is magical thinking or, if you prefer, not borne out by actual polling.
In U.S., Socialist Presidential Candidates Least Appealing
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- As the 2016 presidential election field takes shape, more than nine in 10 Americans say they would vote for a qualified presidential candidate who is Catholic, a woman, black, Hispanic or Jewish. Less than half of Americans would vote for a candidate who is a socialist.
A June 2-7 Gallup poll updated the question -- first asked in 1937 -- about the acceptability of presidential candidates of various background characteristics. The general trend is that Americans have become significantly more accepting over time.
Independent Bernie Sanders, who is seeking the Democratic nomination, is the only Jewish candidate in the race. And while a large majority of Americans are willing to vote for a candidate of his faith, Sanders' self-identification as a socialist could hurt him, as half of Americans say they would not vote for someone with that background.
How about guns? Did you know that the NRA helped Sanders get elected to Congress? No? Now you do.
How the National Rifle Association helped get Bernie Sanders elected
BURLINGTON, Vt. — A few days before Election Day in 1990, the National Rifle Association sent a letter to its 12,000 members in Vermont, with an urgent message about the race for the state’s single House seat.
Vote for the socialist, the gun rights group said. It’s important.
“Bernie Sanders is a more honorable choice for Vermont sportsmen than Peter Smith,” wrote Wayne LaPierre, who was — and still is — a top official at the national NRA, backing Sanders over the Republican incumbent.
That was odd. Sanders was the ex-hippie ex-mayor of Burlington, running as an independent because the Democrats weren’t far enough left. He had never even owned a gun.
But that year, he was the enemy of the NRA’s enemy.
Bernie's lack of appeal to
the minority voters that are forty percent of the Democratic base.
Bernie Sanders Has a Nevada Problem
August 28, 2015 LAS VEGAS—Bernie Sanders has rapidly gained support in the first-in-the-nation voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire, creeping up on Hillary Clinton and raising the possibility of mounting a real challenge to the Democrats' primary front-runner. But in Nevada, the third state on Democratic primary calendar, Sanders faces a challenge that thus far has been the principal sticking point of his campaign: moving past a core supporter base that is largely white, and winning favor among minority voters.
Unlike the first two states on the map, in Nevada, minority voters are poised to play a major role in picking the Democrats' winner. Nonwhite voters make up just less than half of the state's population, while white voters are much more dominant in New Hampshire (92 percent) and Iowa (88 percent). [...]
Of course, Sanders has the option of waving the white flag in Nevada and focusing on states where he's faring better in the polls. But passing on Nevada raises real questions about his ability to compete on a national level. After all, in terms of its demographics, Nevada, far more than Iowa or New Hampshire, mirrors the country as a whole—and provides a far more accurate microcosm of the Democratic party. [...]
And for Sanders, who hails from equally white Vermont, finding a message that resonates with minority communities has posed a challenge thus far. While Clinton had an 80 percent favorable rating among nonwhite Democrats in late July (before his run-ins with Black Lives Matter activists), per Gallup, Sanders's rating with the demographic was just 25 percent.
Sanders' appalling lack of a coherent foreign policy.
Lousy Food, Small Servings -- Sanders Foreign Policy: Backing Saudi Intervention
But another problem is the little that he has articulated in terms of foreign policy -- the foreign policy issue that he's been most passionate about really -- is extremely regressive and incredibly dangerous. That issue is the role of Saudi Arabia. Sanders has actually pushed for the repressive regime to engage in more intervention in the Mideast.
In discussing ISIS, Sanders invariably has talked about Saudi Arabia as the solution rather than a large part of the problem. It's couched in language that seems somewhat critical, but the upshot is we need more Saudi influence and intervention in the region. In effect, more and bigger proxy wars, which have already taken the lives of hundreds of thousands in Syria and could even further rip apart Iraq, Libya and other countries. [...]
What? Why should a U.S. progressive be calling for more intervention by the Saudi monarchy? Really, we want Saudi troops in Syria and Iraq and Libya and who knows where else? You'd think that perhaps someone like Sanders would say that we have to break our decades-long backing of the corrupt Saudi regime -- but no, he wants to dramatically accelerate it.[...]
Some have argued that Sanders' candidacy is very valuable -- that win or lose, he's putting the issue of income inequality front and center. But if the candidacy is to be lauded for raising issues of economic inequality, educate the public and galvanize around that that, it's fair to ask how the candidacy is also deforming public discussion on other crucial issues. If the position of the most prominent "progressive" on the national stage is for more Saudi intervention, what does that do to public understanding of the Mideast and dialogue between people in the U.S. and in Muslim countries?
Bernie's long history of trashing the Democratic Party.
Can Bernie Sanders Win the Love of a Party He Scorns?
“You don’t change the system from within the Democratic Party.”
“My own feeling is that the Democratic Party is ideologically bankrupt.”
“We have to ask ourselves, ‘Why should we work within the Democratic Party if we don’t agree with anything the Democratic Party says?’”
Bernie Sanders, everybody—the same Bernie Sanders who is running to become the Democratic Party’s candidate for president of the United States.
That's an hour's worth of research. If one blogger can do that in his spare time, you can assume the Clinton juggernaut could do better, and translate the result into withering attack ads. That they haven't done so speaks volumes about what must be going on inside Hillary HQ about a mile or so from where I'm writing this.
Hillary is down in the polls just a bit; that's to be expected as the race heats up. The Biden chatter is obviously a distraction, even as the consensus seems to be that he will not run.
But the underlying strength of the Clinton campaign is this: she's running for all intents and purposes as the incumbent. She has the money, the endorsements, the operation, and the votes.
Surge? Who cares?
So the polls may fluctuate, and Hillary will likely lose a state or even several. Many things can happen and will happen. But she will still win.
You might not know it if you’re reading the various articles about Mr. Sanders’s rise in the polls, but Mrs. Clinton still holds as strong a position as any primary candidate in history. And oddly, Mr. Sanders and Mr. Biden have helped clarify that strength.
And then the real fight begins, the one against an opposition so radicalized that birth control for women is a matter of contention, that eleven million undocumented immigrants are in fear for their lives, that even the imperfect healthcare reform of Obamacare is in jeopardy should they prevail.
They want their country back? Yeah? So do I. Bring it.