Readers React: Does Bernie Sanders have a chance of winning? Of course

To the editor: The main purpose behind the article and the poorly constructed USC/L.A. Times poll seems to be to convince voters that their only choice to defeat Donald Trump is to anoint Hillary Clinton. (“Common ground for Democrats: USC Dornsife/Times poll,” March 28)

This is contrary to a recent CNN poll that has Bernie Sanders showing much better results against Trump than does Clinton.

Voters in other Western states aren’t listening to the media bullwash that has been seeking to sideline Sanders ever since it became obvious he was a real contender.

Charles Fredricks, Santa Monica

::

To the editor: Sanders is catching Clinton. The more people know about Bernie, the more they like him. We have a legitimate, uplifting choice.

Sanders stands for the huge majority of us, and he is more electable than Clinton — he attracts far more independents. He wants to take money out of politics. Unless that happens, nothing else you want (jobs, the environment, civil rights, healthcare, education, Social Security) will get done. This is our chance to change the system. Don’t we have to go for it?

Doug Stewart, San Diego

::

To the editor: So it’s just Clinton’s campaign that is riddled with weaknesses?

What do you call a candidate who hasn’t attracted minorities or the LGBT community to his camp? It appears hypocrisy permeates Sanders’ revolution. His disciples, particularly college-educated boomer activists who surely cut their teeth on civil rights issues and are now nearing the endgame, have pledged their allegiance to someone who has not drawn a culturally diverse audience. It certainly doesn’t feel like the moon is in the seventh house.

Louisa B. Caucia, Montrose

::

To the editor: The Times says Sanders remains hopeful, but it would be nicer if he were more truthful.

When he wants us to have free medical and education as in Europe, he neglects to tell you that they pay several times the tax rate we do.

Clinton was right when she warned us that nothing is free. She knows the deck is stacked against those of us who are not millionaires, and she is the only candidate with realistic plans to help families like mine get ahead.

She is the cleanest candidate running; Republicans picked her microscopically clean for years because as the wife of President Bill Clinton, she had the audacity to push for a single-payer national healthcare plan.

Clinton understands that in a democracy we have to compromise to move the ball forward — but be tough enough to stand up to Republicans without giving away the farm.

Marcy Bregman, Agoura Hills

::

To the editor: I was delighted to see The Times’ poll on the election, as I worked there years ago when I lived in Los Angeles.

I was, however, not so taken with the interpretation. Seeing that it was taken before Sanders’ weekend sweep, I could understand why the numbers read the way they did. What the reporter should have considered is that the more people know about Sanders, the more people like him.

Peggy Calkins, Sebastopol, Calif.

::

To the editor: A report on seeking consensus on the best path to a better future? Of course not — that’s not news. This is yet another piece on the horse race, with the fix in and corporate media money clearly on the mare.

The race is over by the end of the first paragraph. Clinton has won; move along, nothing more to see.

Of course Sanders supporters will support Clinton if she wins. But why were Clinton supporters not asked by the Times-commissioned poll whether they would support Sanders if he won?

There is “common ground” among Democrats — a commitment to the interests of ordinary people, especially the oppressed and marginalized — and the primaries are a good principled fight from which a new era of hope may yet emerge.

John Phillips, Camarillo

::

To the editor: The Times’ recent post-primary coverage sure takes the fun out of living in a democracy.

On several days, the Page 1 coverage was Trump, Trump, Trump and his two distant rivals, while the competitive Democratic race was relegated inside.

Sanders’ recent wins on two days were historically lopsided — the most recent trio being 2-to-1, 3-to-1 and 4-to-1 trouncings. Those newsworthy tallies are unmentioned in The Times’ 12 paragraphs inside, which instead are largely devoted to the inevitability of Clinton’s nomination.

Though only about 200 voter-chosen delegates separate Sanders and Clinton, and 2,000 delegates remain to be decided, The Times’ has all but announced Clinton as the winner.

When Democrats did make the front page, it was to trumpet polling showing the willingness of Sanders’ supporters to back Clinton in the general election — not even bothering to ask Clinton supporters if they’d do the same for Sanders.

With our primary still two months away, will The Times continue to spend that time telling Democratic and progressive voters “Don’t bother”?

Jim Washburn, Costa Mesa

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook