2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumDemocrats Election to Lose
The name of the game is holding the White House.
When it comes to 'likeability', 'compassion', 'trustworthiness' and 'most likely to represent me' Bernie Sanders is beating Clinton nationally.
Bernie Sanders is the only candidate, Republican or Democrat, with positive 'Trustworthiness' numbers nationally.
Bernie Sanders is the only Democrat that beats all teapublicans in a General Election contest.
Bernie Sanders is considered 'electable' by over 70% of voters nationally.
Bernie Sanders has received more individual donations than any presidential candidate in history.
He out fundraised, from individual donors, every candidate running for president in January.
No Democratic Party presidential candidate has ever won the presidency negative on the numbers of 'likeability' and trustworthiness'.
Per analysis from Lawrence O'Donnell, she has never managed to turn a negative number into a positive.
They are not outlier polls. They have been the results in poll after poll.
Exit polls from every state so far stated the same thing. Sanders has won every exit poll in those key categories of 'likeability' and 'trustworthiness'.
She lost Independents by 3 to 1 in Nevada. No national Party will win national elections without independents.
Your only hope, in a General Election, is people hate tRump more than Hillary. So far, in one-on-one match up polling she is losing to tRump (fyi...Sanders is beating all match ups).
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)Gothmog
(145,479 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.
Sanders will be eviscerated. Too many on here are living in lala land
angrychair
(8,730 posts)Is that teapublicans, that will not be voting for Sanders anyway, will be beating the "great red scare" drums? Oh noes! Sorry my friend, no one younger than 50 even gives a shit. Anyone younger than 30 won't even know what the hell you are taking about. Stop trying to frame a campaign like we are running against Raygun in 80's....this isn't Rocky IV.
Your point rings hollow given he has received more individual donations than any other presidental candidate in history...over 4 million by the end of the Nevada Caucus.
most importantly, you have glossed over the whole point of my post.
Hillary Clinton is negative in "likeability" and "trustworthiness". You don't win a GE with those numbers negative.
They have been negative since the start. They were negative in 2008.
Those negatives cannot be easily fixed and she has never been successful at trying to fix it.
That, unlike your article above, is not opinion but cold hard reality.
wyldwolf
(43,868 posts)The GOP is salivating to get him. Every bogus charge against the Democratic party over the last 50 years that sunk various campaigns is now true about Sanders.
angrychair
(8,730 posts)Are we going with the "great socialist bogeyman" theory? Please see my post #4.