CBS/NYT: Clinton 48 Sanders 41

[Former Democrat]

Love it

[jaichind]

I think that Sanders and Trump might be building each other up.  As a Trump victory seems more viable it could provoke Dems to take a chance on Sanders since the GOP might have a more extreme and ergo weaker candidate.  And on the flip side a possible Sanders victory might be building up Trump since the Dems might have a more extreme and weaker candidate.

[Oak Hills]

The difference, of course, is that TRUMP admits he wants to repeal Obamacare. Sanders' supporters, on the other hand, act deeply offended and outraged when it is correctly pointed out that Bernie wants to do the same.

The fact is that the Democratic spent a lot of time, energy, political capital, money and public trust on Obamacare. It's a major part of our President's legacy. We essentially traded our House majority for it. Bernie Sanders wants to, essentially, start all over again from scratch. He wants to go to the American people, and essentially tell them "Sorry about that Obamacare thing that we spent seven years defending, but it actually sucks and now we're going to do a whole new thing that is going to be many times more disruptive, many times more expensive, and this time literally zero of you are going to be able to keep your insurance, even if you like it!"

That's a tough sell. It will cost considerable political capital. It will strain what little trust the American people have left in the competency of the Democratic Party, in the competency of government, in the very idea of an activist government, to be told "oops, we messed up on healthcare reform, time to repeal it and start all over trying a totally new thing!" Sanders should be honest about this.

Oh, please. Sanders saying he wants the replace the imperfect reform package passed seven years ago with another reform does not mean he wants to go back to the previous system, which is what a "repeal" implies. There is no doubt that if a Republican Congress sent a repeal bill or a "reform" that made the system worse from a liberal perspective, he would veto it, and if you would deny that, you are a liar. Sanders has been very clear that Obamacare is an improvement over the previous system, but that it is still highly flawed and should be replaced with something better. You can argue that the American public has no appetite for another reform so soon, or that single-payer would be a worse system than Obamacare, and those would be perfectly legitimate criticisms. However, claiming that Sanders's plan would roll back Obamacare, all but comes out and says that he wants a return to the previous system, which is an outright lie. What passing single-payer would do would be to replace Obamacare with a system that has never been fully implemented in the United States, but has been successful in several other countries, and I know you know it. Your extreme disingenuousness and trolling got old a long time ago.

[BlueSwan]

So I wonder what made his momentum start growing again even after it faltered late last year...

Anyway, great news!

My theories:

1. Activists, particularly students, going home for the holidays and persuading some of their family members.
2. Trump's rise makes a crazy outsider look more viable in general.
3. Clinton made a strategic decision to run a explicitly feminine America's Grandma campaign.  For partially sexist reasons, this is hurting her now that national security is dominating the news.  It's also making it easier for Sanders to counter his age and reminds Democrats of Clinton's support for the Iraq War, intervention in Libya, etc. 

I don't buy the last reason. Clinton's tenure as SoS and Sanders's unwillingness to talk about national security matters make her a much more appealing choice for the voters who care more about Syria, ISIS, etc.

But liberal voters actually like Sanders' soft pacifism.  It would surely be a liability in the general, but it's a net asset in the primary.  Her hawkishness makes the sweet grandma act look really fake.  If she had gone with a competence-based "I can kick a** better than any of these goofy old men" narrative from the beginning, she would be a lot better off right now.  When you're up 2/1 on strong leader and down 2/1 on cares about people like me, and you're universally known, you emphasize the former!

Yes, absolutely! Clinton should 100% focus on a "strong leader" campaign, because that reinforces what people already believe about her and is the main reason why she was so long seen as "inevitable".

Also, I believe that restricting the number of democratic debates has totally backfired on the DNC. The fact is that Clinton is formidable in debates and having more of them only helps her - not the other way around.

[Zanas]

Let's imagine Trump wants to expand the death penalty to petty theft and verbal insult. He would have to pass a legal act of some kind to implement it (I'm not familiar enough with your legal system to know of which nature, but that's besides the point) with the new regime replacing the old one.

Saying Sanders wants to repeal Obamacare is like saying, in the above case : Trump wants to abolish the death penalty !!!1!!1!

[Lief 🗽]

Let's imagine Trump wants to expand the death penalty to petty theft and verbal insult. He would have to pass a legal act of some kind to implement it (I'm not familiar enough with your legal system to know of which nature, but that's besides the point) with the new regime replacing the old one.

Saying Sanders wants to repeal Obamacare is like saying, in the above case : Trump wants to abolish the death penalty !!!1!!1!

Sure, if you're terrible at analogies.