[quote=“wynn_james, post:209, topic:59394”]
Hillary could strangle a puppy on live TV, and she’d still get a majority of Democrats to vote for her.
[/quote]That’s untrue. If that was the case, she would have won against Obama.
As time and knowledge of Sanders and his solid record goes on, he is gaining. As time and increased knowledge of Clinton’s flip-flopping and pandering goes on, she is waning. People don’t trust Hillary Clinton for many clear, easy to understand reasons.
Also, please keep in mind that mainstream polls (such as Gallup) are often skewed towards Hillary Clinton and do NOT reflect reality. This is also giving Hillary Clinton and some of her more ardent supporters too much hubris and a false sense of security.
For example this latest, flawed Gallup Poll:
Sanders Surges, Clinton Sags in U.S. Favorability
Sanders is surging higher than that poll implies due to a terribly flawed methodology that doesn’t work properly in 2015.
Their sampling is 50% cellphone and 50% landline respondents. The problem is the electorate isn’t broken up in that manner.
50% of the data is skewed to eliminate many of Sanders most ardent supporters who rent within cities and elsewhere, are lower income and/or are young, etc.
Most adults of voting age who rent apartments/homes do not have a landline. Most adults of voting age who are lower income do not have a landline. There are entire regions of the country where a huge percentage of the population are cellphone only. Most Millennials, by far, do not have a landline, period. This situation is only increasing over time.
Sanders’ surge in these polls this early in race (before we’ve even had any debates) is already impressive, however, it’s even larger than these flawed polls are telling us.