2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumConcerned about Bernie's electability?
This is a logical look at how he has done, and what is behind some of the media coverage decrying his advances in the polls. So far her coverage of the race has been accurate.
Floridanow
(74 posts)And if we nominate him, republicans will swift boat him, making him look like an original Bolshevik. Sanders doesn't do a remotely good job of explaining what a Democratic-Socialist is and republicans will pounce on that problem.
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)Bernie knows how to fight. Let them try to Swiftboat.
Furthermore, the argument that Americans don't know Bernie doesn't hold water since he has done nothing but skyrocket in the polls, even without media attention. In fact, even with negative media attention. And being unknown on top of it.
He's been totally explicit with his definition of Democratic Socialism. It's well know to be an important part of the foundation of America. It's how we ended up with highways and schools, not to mention the military.
farleftlib
(2,125 posts)and he does better on GE matchups than Hillary. Thanks for posting.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)I haven't been concerned, I'm not concerned, and all the hammering to try to make me, to try to make the public, concerned makes me more determined than ever to shove it back down their throat with a nomination and a GE win.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Arkansas Granny
(31,518 posts)That being said, if he is the nominee, the right wing will tear him to shreds. He'll be branded a communist for starters and they will move on from there. If they can't find skeletons in his closet, they'll invent some. They will swiftboat the hell out of him.
As much as some here despise Hillary, she's head and shoulders above anyone on the Republican side. The right has been dragging her through the mud for 40+ years and it's hard for me to believe that they have anything new to use against her.
The polls may show Bernie's electability to be favorable right now, but he hasn't been in the right wing crosshairs yet.
By all means, support the candidate of your choice, but these are a few points to consider.
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)From what I've seen, Bernie has the ability to take on the Republican gauntlet. But you're right: we'll have to see. We could be in for some surprises if it turns sour. I just cannot imagine that after 25 years of battling the Senate. Plus, from his interactions in the debates, he's a prize fighter.
Gothmog
(145,321 posts)The reliance on these polls by Sanders supporters amuse me. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/harrys-guide-to-2016-election-polls/
Sanders supporters have to rely on these worthless polls because it is clear that Sanders is not viable in a general election where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may spend an additional billion dollars.
No one should rely on hypo match up type polls in selecting a nominee at this stage of the race.
elias49
(4,259 posts)while he develops polls for everything from football games to greased pig races.
Just funny.
Gothmog
(145,321 posts)These polls are worthless and Nate Silver and others have attacked the use of these match up polls. The media likes these polls to try to promote a horse race but such polls are worthless due (a) the high margin of error (you have in effect double the margin of error) and (b) the candidate in question has not been vested.
If a poll has a margin of error of 4%(many of these polls have far higher margins of error) then to account for such margin of error, one must assume that the Sanders results against a GOP candidate could be 4% lower and Clinton's results are actually 4% higher. One cannot compare results in two separate polls without adjusting for the margin of error in each poll.
These polls also assume that the candidate has been vetted and is a viable candidate (i.e., has adequate funding to run in the general election). According to the Sanders people he has not been given any media coverage and therefore he has not been vetted. The reason for that is that the media does not think that Sanders will be the nominee and vetting Sanders would hurt the narrative that there is a horse race. Sander has some vetting issues that will hurt him if he is the nominee and Sanders is also very vulnerable to negative ads. Hypothetical match up polls also assume that the candidate can run a viable and well financed campaign. That is not the case for Sanders who is very vulnerable to negative ads on the costs of his programs and his socialism
Nate Silver and others are very clear that these polls are worthless but you are welcome to rely on these polls if that is the only way that you can attempt to show that Sanders is electable
Gothmog
(145,321 posts)Here are some warnings from Nate Silver's 538 site. Warning number three is very relevant
Gothmog
(145,321 posts)Dana Milbank has some good comments on general election match up polls https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-would-be-insane-to-nominate-bernie-sanders/2016/01/26/0590e624-c472-11e5-a4aa-f25866ba0dc6_story.html?hpid=hp_opinions-for-wide-side_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
Watching Sanders at Monday nights Democratic presidential forum in Des Moines, I imagined how Trump or another Republican nominee would disembowel the relatively unknown Vermonter.
The first questioner from the audience asked Sanders to explain why he embraces the socialist label and requested that Sanders define it so that it doesnt concern the rest of us citizens.
Sanders, explaining that much of what he proposes is happening in Scandinavia and Germany (a concept that itself alarms Americans who dont want to be like socialized Europe), answered vaguely: Creating a government that works for all of us, not just a handful of people on the top thats my definition of democratic socialism.
But thats not how Republicans will define socialism and theyll have the dictionary on their side. Theyll portray Sanders as one who wants the government to own and control major industries and the means of production and distribution of goods. Theyll say he wants to take away private property. That wouldnt be fair, but it would be easy. Socialists dont win national elections in the United States .
Sanders on Monday night also admitted he would seek massive tax increases one of the biggest tax hikes in history, as moderator Chris Cuomo put it to expand Medicare to all. Sanders, this time making a comparison with Britain and France, allowed that hypothetically, youre going to pay $5,000 more in taxes, and declared, W e will raise taxes, yes we will. He said this would be offset by lower health-insurance premiums and protested that its demagogic to say, oh, youre paying more in taxes.
Well, yes and Trump is a demagogue.
Sanders also made clear he would be happy to identify Democrats as the party of big government and of wealth redistribution. When Cuomo said Sanders seemed to be saying he would grow government bigger than ever, Sanders didnt quarrel, saying, P eople want to criticize me, okay, and F ine, if thats the criticism, I accept it.
Sanders accepts it, but are Democrats ready to accept ownership of socialism, massive tax increases and a dramatic expansion of government? If so, they will lose.
Match up polls are worthless because these polls do not measure what would happen to Sanders in a general election where Sanders is very vulnerable to negative ads.
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)I think we all share the same concerns. From what I've seen of his history in the Congress, and his ability to fight in the debates, I have confidence. But who knows where this will go.
My sense of Bernie is that he knows far too well what there is to lose. So he's not going to lose what he has gained. But this is not a vacuum, and the spinners and swiftboating has been perfected.
The Republicans are not mentioning Bernie. I didn't hear his name once in the debate last night. Does that mean anything? What I sense is they simply do not know how to handle him.
The modus operandi of the Republican is to pick on a weakness. They just don't know what to do with a Dem with a spine, and no baggage. Call him what you want, but I think they'll only make him stronger.
Gothmog
(145,321 posts)Karl Rove and the GOP are running ads to help Sanders in the primary process because the GOP and Rove know that they can not beat Clinton. Sanders is being supported by a couple of GOP super pacs which are doing their best to help Sanders get the nomination.
If Sanders became the nominee, he would be attacked with several hundred million dollars of negative ads. Heck the recent article by the Chicago Tribune showing that the tax rate would be 77% under Sanders will make some great attack ads
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)I am fully aware of the viciousness which will shortly ensue regardless of whom is the nominee. It's a sad state of affairs that we're still not in the 21st century when it comes to elections. But I digress...
My sense is that Bernie is not fully on their radar screen yet. His polling up until recently has been unimportant to them, in a way. I think what you said is true, and they really think Bernie is slam dunk. But a lot has changed in just 8 years, not even including Obama. The reality is we've made vast progress through our forms of protest, which have all been given the slime treatment. It does work. But this time we have a candidate who has message that resonates because it's human, it's true, and it's time. We identified the source of the income inequality so that everyone knows it now. We exposed military crimes and other dastardly things through Wikileaks, and others.
It has been interesting in the respect that Americans are getting involved. I feel that this is yet more growth for the country regardless of who wins the nomination.