Romney gave it a run for the money, letting a senile actor hog that stage for a seeming eternity, preventing much of the nation from seeing a pretty decent campaign video.
As for platforms, who cares? Does anyone read them except the opposition?
Silver’s estimation of the proportion of Democrats who are “white liberals” is badly calculated, because there is a statistical correlation between a white Democrat and self-identifying as liberal. And it’s irrelevant, because Sanders’s appeal is to economic progressives and socialists, regardless of skin color.
So, yes, Bernie needs to win over Americans outside of Iowa and New Hampshire already. But this is really lowballing his probable base of support.
They usually don’t, but in 1972 it was an issue. Platforms only matter when the party makes them matter by having huge fights over things.
The 1972 Democratic convention was completely disorganized. as a pundit said at the time, the reason there wasn’t a repeat of the 1968 riots was because the rioters were the delegates.
This becomes a little problematic. The right-wing goes nuts on stuff like this, and the business community will dump hundreds of millions into advertising to fight a guy who talks like this:
[quote=“[Steve Guest – Daily Caller]
(Bernie Sanders: ‘The Business Model Of Wall Street Is Fraud’ [VIDEO] | The Daily Caller)”]Bernie Sanders blasted the business model of Wall Street, calling it a “fraud.”
*Jake Tapper: You also talk about taking on the billionaire class… Give us some specifics …
Bernie Sanders: I think that the business model of Wall Street is fraud. And I think these guys drove us into the worst economic down turn in the modern history of America. And I think they’re at it again. I believe when you have so few banks with so much power you have to not only re-establish Glass–Steagall Act but you’ve got to break them up.… I believe that our trade policies with NAFTA, CAFTA, PNTR with China have been a disaster. I am helping to lead the effort against the Trans-Pacific Partnership.… I believe, along with Pope Francis, and almost all scientists, that climate change is threatening this planet in horrendous ways and that we have to be aggressive in transforming our energy system away from fossil fuel, and defeat, and defeat the Keystone pipeline, that is not Hillary Clinton’s position. I believe that as opposed to my Republican colleagues who want to cut Social Security, I believe we should expand Social Security by lifting the cap on taxable income.… I believe that we’ve got to raise the minimum wage over a period of several years to $15 an hour.…*
[/quote]
Of course, if the public comes to view Sanders as the plucky underdog who speaks honestly, a relentless assault on his ideas could prove counter-productive.
I’ve never seen this much desire on the part of the electorate for someone truly different. It doesn’t seem to matter what such candidates say, they rise in the polls anyway.
Sanders isn’t saying anything truly weird, being a professional politician who knows the limits of political discourse. That would make him the most electable guy in either field if what I’m seeing going on holds until Nov. 2016. But as of right now, Sanders, Carson, Fiorina, and Trump are all seeing rising poll numbers while establishment candidates are dropping.
Yes, can we? 
If you don’t pretend that the polls are all that matter, how can you unskew them when they start going against your candidate?
I looked for articles on the relationship of crowd size to US presidential election results. Most of the recent ones give examples of the candidate with big crowds losing:
Bernie Sanders And The Size And Wisdom Of Crowds : It's All Politics : NPR.
However, most evidence concerns general elections.
One reason people may not be turning out for Hillary Clinton’s early rallies is because they expect to have chances to see her in September and October 2016. Assuming she is nominated, I predict that her October 2016 crowds will be much bigger than that of the GOP candidate – even if the race is close, and even if the Republican wins.
If, and I hope it doesn’t happen, Trump is nominated, he will then turn centrist. That means more votes, but smaller crowds.
With Clinton is suspect it’s simply that many voters prefer her, but don’t find that she has anything interesting enough to say to want to go see her speak.
Five Thirty Eight is starting to backpedal a bit:
Meanwhile, this article argues that the BlackLivesMatter protests have actually helped Bernie by showing how willing he is to listen to criticism and adapting his message accordingly:
http://thejailhouse.net/2015/09/01/the-blacklivesmatter-protest-has-helped-not-hurt-bernies-campaign/
Adaher finally scores on 538! And Bernie fans as well.
The shutout couldn’t last forever 
Well, they did admit earlier that Sanders could win both IA and NH. But still fail to win the nomination.
I like Sanders and still might support him, but I think he only has a 10-15% chance at the nomination.
Just vote for him in the primary, at least it will send a message.
Bernie Sanders Lays Down 2016’s New Electoral Math: “I think you’re looking at the candidate who can substantially increase voter turnout all across the country.”
Indeed he would – in both parties.
Then we get graphics like this which only end up making Bernie look like that guy in the “Free Candy” van. The accusation, as it were, will be “How’re ya gonna pay fer all dat?” which will resonate with the RWers who chant “tax and spend, tax and spend, tax and spend” at any non-glibertarian.
Of course on that list cut military spending, end the war on drugs, 1% tax increase, and demilitarize the police actually all save money. And two others (overturn Citizens United and ending police brutality) are basically cost neutral. But whatever.
Yeah, that list looks like a bunch of positives. Maybe not for Crockett and Tubbs, but for the rest of us.