I spent a couple minutes this weekend trying to find something in the polling ...

[1StrongBlackMan]

and could not find it.

There has been a lot of talk among Democrats about who the republicans would rather face ... HRC say it's Bernie and Bernie supporters say it's HRC; both sides base their opinion on a belief that republicans think they can beat the candidate that they (Democratic supporters) don't support.

So I was wondering if any polls actually asked the question ..."Which democratic candidate the republican voters would rather face?"

I was unable to find any polling on that question. I wonder why?

[lovemydog]

1. Yup, there's no accurate information on it.

It's all speculation.

Even if there are such polls, responses from some of the more histrionic supporters would be hilarious.

'See, this poll clearly shows who they'd rather run against!'

Or 'They are obviously lying to try and fake us out!'

[leftofcool]

2. Well, Ann Coulter said........................

[Armstead]

3. They don't usually ask that -- I don't know why

They even do hypothetical GOP match ups with Biden...but seldom Bernie. Doesn't make sense to me,

[1StrongBlackMan]

4. Well...

every poll that I've seen that does hypothetical GOP match ups, has included Bernie.

[Armstead]

5. I misinterpreted your question

But I have seen many polls that leave out Sanders from direct match-ups.

[BooScout]

6. Good question!

I wonder why too.

Welcome back! You have been missed!

[TheKentuckian]

7. Probably not much polling of RNC insiders and their owners.

I'm not sure what model could be used for them nor am I sure such folks can be counted on for much honesty anyway. Lying and breathing are almost inseparable for them.

[1StrongBlackMan]

13. I'm not talking about rnc insiders or their owners ...

I'm talking about polling of the same people the poll on who they prefer in their own party.

[TheKentuckian]

17. Oh, I see. Nobody actually cares what they think especially their authoritarian leaders

but also including themselves. They like being told what they think.

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. What are you talking about now? n/t

[Hortensis]

8. 1Strong, polls are only one indicator among others, and often least accurate.

Nate Silver's site at FiveThirtyFive.com is a pretty good place to start understanding the way prognosticators think, and the NY Times has a standing piece on its political page on evaluating polls.

As for your question, polling costs money. If they're not investing it in that question, maybe they don't think the results would be of any real significance.

HRC has a good and widespread organization in many states, has raised a lot of money, and has gathered a lot of endorsements and commitments (which could be lost, but they're hers now). These things may be disregarded by voters who notice only polls, if those, but they are of great significance to the GOP.

[Bagsgroove]

9. The Republicans haven't got much to go on so far

I haven't seen polling with the specific question to Republicans about which Democrat they'd rather run against, but it's probably fair to say they'd want whichever Democrat they thought they had the best chance of beating. The problem for Republicans is that in most of the polling to date their guys all get beaten by either Hillary or Bernie, with Hillary topping the hypothetical Republican by only a slightly greater margin than Bernie tops the same hypothetical Republican (see RealClearPolitics polling averages).

Even worse news for the GOP is that Biden actually polls stronger against Republican candidates in general election polling than either Hillary or Bernie.

It's still way early to take polls seriously, but as of now the GOP has no "easy" Democrat to hope for.

[HereSince1628]

10. It's probably only a bit of the puzzle, but there was a story that Vermont republicans

preferred Sanders to their own candidates.

I suspect the poobahs of the GOP are pretty traditional in their outlook, and see money and organization as a big threat.

Until we had the 3rd quarter fund-raising figures, the 'prevailing wisdom' was that Clinton dominated the domain of structural campaign support. There was no real reason for the media to tell stories about was unquestioned.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

11. And here I thought you were going to say

'supporters of Webb, Chafee, or O'Malley'.

[1StrongBlackMan]

14. Why would I say that? ...

supporters of Webb, Chafee, and/or O'Malley haven't engaged in posting "republicans are scared to death of {Insert: Bernie/HRC here, depending on whom you support}" posts.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

15. I didn't mean they'd posted anything

just that you can barely find them in polling.

[1StrongBlackMan]

16. Oh. Okay ...

that observation is true.

[Cosmocat]

12. They are the scorpion

in the scorpion and frog story.

Seriously.

They have a nature and they stick to it like clockwork.

There nature is to destroy the head of the democratic party.

Hillary has been the defacto head since Bill got elected, and they have spent the last two decades trying to destroy her.

So, as someone else noted, they loved them some BHO against her until such time as BHO was the front runner for the nomination, and then they loved them some Hill until he secured it, because the enemy of my enemy.

They spent the next five years trying to destory BHO, while hacking at her when they have a free moment or opportunity.

Once he got reelected they turned their focus back to Hill 100 percent, and that has been where it has been until now.

I know the Bernistas want to think what they want to think, but that is it, it isn't some super throught out strategy to not pay attention to death Bernie because they are so scared of him. That is far to nuanced for republicans. They just are like the Borg, they relentlessly move forward and in this case with 100 percent focus on Hillary.

NOW, such time as Bernie starts to close on her, that will change.

But, even today, their focus is on destroying Hill because she is the front runner.