Implied electability odds from betting markets.
http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016presidentPredictwise has the betting odds for candidates to win both the nomination and the general election. By dividing the GE probability by the primary probability, we can compute the probability of winning the general conditional on first winning the primary. It comes out like this
Hillary: 68 primary, 42 general, conditional probability is 42/68 = 62%
Biden: 19 primary, 13 general, conditional probability 13/19 = 68%
Bernie: 12 primary, 6 general, conditional probability 6/12 = 50%
For the GOP leaders we get
Bush: 13/34 = 38%
Rubio: 9/25 = 36%
Trump: 6/12 = 50%
Fiorina: 3/8 = 38%
One note of caution, in cases where the numbers are low, rounding error could have a big influence. For example, Trump and Bernie are at 6/12 which comes to 50%, but if the 6 and 12 are actually 6.49 and 11.51, this would come out to 56%, and it could also go as low as 44% if the rounding worked out the other way.
Anyway, I find these numbers interesting. On the Dem side, it's no surprise that Bernie has the lowest electability, though 50% is respectable, and personally I think his chances of beating the GOP are lower than that. Biden comes out on top, which makes some sense, and Hillary is looking good too.
On the GOP side, the big surprise is that the most electable is Trump, and the mainstream candidates Bush and Rubio have horrible electability percentages, below 40. It is possible that some of Trump's GE odds are coming from a possible 3rd party candidacy, but I think that the odds of him running as a third party and actually winning are tiny.
= new reply since forum marked as read
On a number of levels.
The influence on money on elections is obscene.
But there is also a point of critical mass in which ads become neutered and/or counterproductive. "Not another goddamn Romney ad!"
Support and grassroots organizing is also a factor.
And if you want to talk money -- if Big Donors and the Democratic Establishment were to bail on funding in the General Election because it's Sanders.......Well it shows what they were expecting for their investments. And that's a big part of the problem.
It is also possible for Sanders to raise money in more small contributions. Say, being very conservative, as a baseline 10 million were convinced to donate $10, that's $100 million alone. And that can be expanded by more people and make larger donations.
Getting so tired of the 
about trying anything different.
Read the whole post, assume that many donations will be larger, and that perhaps more that 10 million people might kick in.
Once again, I am simply saying that -- while the campaign finance system is obscene -- we can't always base everything on of th big bad GOP and the wealthy.
That's how they keep winning.
