2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumPolls Say Bernie Is More Electable Than Hillary. Don’t Believe Them.
What they really show is a candidate who hasnt been attacked.
Trailing in the Democratic presidential race, Bernie Sanders has one last gambit. He wants to persuade the partys superdelegatesofficeholders, luminaries, and party officials who can vote at the conventionthat hes the Democrats best hope to win the general election. Never mind that Hillary Clinton has won more votes and elected delegates. There are a lot of delegates out there who are looking at the general matchup, Sanders argued Sunday on CNN. And what theyre seeing in polls is that Bernie Sanders is running a lot stronger against Donald Trump than is Hillary Clinton.
Its true that Sanders does better than Clinton in hypothetical matchups against the Republicans. Currently, Sanders outperforms Clinton by more than seven percentage points against Trump, and by nearly nine points against Ted Cruz. But thats not because Sanders is the stronger nominee. Its because Republicans havent yet trashed him the way theyve trashed Clinton. Once they do, his advantage over her would disappear.
In recent days, several writersSahil Kapur in Bloomberg Politics, David Corn in Mother Jones, Greg Sargent in the Washington Post, Ed Kilgore in New York, and othershave sketched this argument. But is it true? Polls suggest it is. A concerted attack on Sanders weaknesses would hurt him badly in a general election. Heres how it would look.
The problem with current polls that test Sanders against Trump or Cruz is that they dont capture the effects of the fall campaign. As Harry Enten points out in FiveThirtyEight, early general-election polls in previous cycles were predictively worthless. Early in the 2000 election, for instance, George W. Bush led Al Gore by 12 percentage points. Bush, then the Texas governor, burst onto the national scene with relatively little negative media scrutiny, Enten observes. Between December 1999 and November 2000, as the scrutiny intensified, Bushs net favorability fell 27 percentage points. He ended up losing the popular vote.
...
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/04/polls_say_bernie_is_more_electable_than_hillary_don_t_believe_them.html
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Don't believe the polls - it's all part of a right-wing sexist racist campaign by hell-bound sluts and duped millennials who are complacent and and and it's her turn!
Bernie not vetted? After all the trouble Clinton has gone through to impede his wins, do you really think that she would refuse to use any attack on Sanders? She had Chelsea LYING about Sanders. She had David Brock trying to drive some kind of racial wedge between Sanders and core constituencies of the Democratic Party (while of course dissmissing millennials herself with utmost vengeance). But lies and twisted nonsense are not an attack?
Puh-lease...
Arkansas Granny
(31,518 posts)No? Well, neither have I.
If Bernie is the nominee, they will have a field day with him. Socialism? Communism? Same thing (according to Republicans). What, Bernie's been to Russia? Cuba? He praised Castro?!? Bernie has not been vetted by the right wing and if he is, it won't be pretty. Anything Hillary has said about Bernie during the primaries will pale in comparison.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Because the "S" word is a major draw to those who realize we've been coddling the billionaires for far too long.
Criticism from the right is exactly what Bernie wants! The more they paint him as a liberal, the more he embraces it and the more disaffected former Dems he can pick up.
Arkansas Granny
(31,518 posts)The most reliable voting bloc are those 65 and older, in other words, those who grew up with the cold war and hiding under their desks at school in drills in case Russia dropped the bomb on us.
merrily
(45,251 posts)do not outnumber all the other voting blocs combined.
Sorry, red baiting is not the magic wand it used to be. '
A healthy percentage of younger voters even favor socialism over capitalism.
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)I remember those bomb drills well. And you are spot on about those over 65. Voting for them isn't a fad, it is a responsibility.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)the GOP a permanent lease on the White House. But like the GOP and FOX base, voters over 65 are
a) aging fast and dying off (especially the Third Way- & GOP-voting ones)
b) being replenished by "old hippies" who seem to like Bernie a lot. And trust me: they don't have issues with "socialism" because they have seen what social-Democracyy did to - for instance - Denmark. And they like it so much that they'd like to try the same over here. As in: "long overdue measures, now f*ck off you military-industrial complex builders".
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)This isn't the 1950's. I went to Russia 16 years ago. The first McDonalds opened there 26 years ago.
No one cares about Castro, or any of the other things that you mentioned.....
Stallion
(6,474 posts)she's barely laid a glove on him-there is all kinds of things in his past that she has refused to touch
Gwhittey
(1,377 posts)People would vote for someone called a crock over a socialist because the GOP says so.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)They would chew him up and spit him out by lunchtime.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)if he gets the nomination. LOL. They would be attacking him now if they had the goods. Clinton has a ton of baggage. She has been on the wrong side forever. What would they say about her support for the Iraq War? Maybe, "So for the most important foreign policy decision in the last century you decided that we Republicons were correct and helped us sell the war."
Arkansas Granny
(31,518 posts)They don't want to tip their hand too soon.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Wright, Rezko and whatever else she found and insinuated and made up the rest.
Then again, Rhett, why do we bother trying to introduce facts and logic into a DU thread? That ship sailed as shortly after Senator Warren started becoming really popular.
Gothmog
(145,303 posts)According to this article, Sanders has been treated with kid gloves by the Clinton campaign to date. However the GOP will not be as kind to Sanders. This article from VOX has some good predictions as to how nasty the GOP and the Kochs will be http://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10903404/gop-campaign-against-sanders
Sanders would be the oldest president ever to take office older than John McCain, who faced serious questions about this in 2008.
Sanders is a socialist. "No, no," you explain, "it's democratic socialist, like in Denmark." I'm sure GOP attack ads will take that distinction into careful consideration.
Sanders explicitly wants to raise taxes, and not only on the rich.
That's just the obvious stuff. And he has barely been hit on any of it so far.
I have no real way of knowing whether Sanders and his advisers appreciate what's coming if he wins the nomination, or whether they have a serious plan to deal with it, something beyond hoping a political revolution will drown it out.
But at least based on my experience, the Bernie legions are not prepared. They seem convinced that the white working class would rally to the flag of democratic socialism. And they are in a state of perpetual umbrage that Sanders isn't receiving the respect he's due, that he's facing even mild attacks from Clinton's camp.
If they are aware that it's been patty-cakes so far, that much, much worse and more vicious attacks are inevitable, and that no one knows how Sanders might perform with a giant political machine working to define him as an unhinged leftist, they hide it well.
In the name of diverting some small percentage of the social media bile surely headed my way, let's be clear about a few things: This is not an argument against supporting Sanders. There's nothing dumber than making political decisions based on how the other side might react. (For one thing, that would have foreclosed supporting Obama, a black urbanite with a funny name, in 2008.)
But it is an argument that Sanders has gaping vulnerabilities that have not yet been exploited at all, so his followers should not yet feel sanguine about his ability to endure conservative attacks. Also they should get a thicker skin, quick.
The GOP will have a great deal of material to work with and the Kochs will be spending $887 million, the RNC candidate may spend another billion dollars and Bloomberg (who will only run if Sanders is the nominee) will spend another billion dollars. These groups will have a great deal to work with
The concept that the Sanders supporters think that the attacks by the Clinton campaign are scorched earth tactics is really amusing
Gothmog
(145,303 posts)That is why Karl Rove has been running ads against Clinton. The GOP really wants to run against a weaker candidate http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-karl-rove-attack
In a Tuesday evening statement, the Clinton campaign's communications director, Jennifer Palmieri, mentioned an ad from the Rove-aligned super PAC American Crossroads, which accused Clinton of being in Wall Street's pocket. Palmieri said the ad suggests that Republicans want to face Sanders in the general election.
"While Senator Sanders tries to make a case on electability based on meaningless polls, Republicans and their super PACs have made clear the candidate theyre actually afraid to face. The Sanders argument falls apart when the GOP spokesman is trying to help him and the Republicans run ads trying to stop Hillary Clinton in the primary," she said in the statement.
Karl Rove is running an attack ad against Clinton and not Sanders. Sanders is a very weak general election candidate
merrily
(45,251 posts)it's meaningless.
Gothmog
(145,303 posts)These polls are worthless because Sanders has not been vetted by the media http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/first-read-three-weeks-go-three-margin-error-races-n493946
These match up polls are not meaningful at this stage
merrily
(45,251 posts)Gothmog
(145,303 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 26, 2016, 02:32 PM - Edit history (1)
These match up polls are worthless but they are all that Sanders has to make the electablity argument. Here is a good thread talking about these polls http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511038010
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. Sanders would be a very weak general election candidate
CentralCoaster
(1,163 posts)If she had been idle for 16 years we might be able to say she's been vetted.
But the truth is that she and Bill have been SO busy lately that there are volumes of questionable activities to be revealed.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)record. They supported his naming 2 post offices. Truly vetted.
merrily
(45,251 posts)the House and Senate. In addition to founding the House Progressive Caucus almost as soon as he got to Congress and chairing it for its first 8 years in a row, he he wrote important amendments and bills as both a Representative and a Senator and got them passed. Hillary did not do anywhere near as well with legislation she sponsored. Remembering the American Revolution (if the parades, concerts and fireworks failed to jog your memory) remembering Harriet Tubman's birthday, re-naming a post office. Luckily for us, she even failed to get the two unconstitutional flag burning bills she wrote passed into law.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)why only one of his Senate colleagues supports him. He's right down there with Ted Cruz.
merrily
(45,251 posts)praise for him until he dared run against Hillary. Schumer, when head of the DSCC, and Dean, when head of the DNC, would not even support a Democrat running against him.
And you also know that Hillary's record in the Senate is not the reason the Party is backing her.
Let's not play brand new, ok?
CentralCoaster
(1,163 posts)All those senators who won't speak up, who support her, do so as cowards and/or sycophants.
Governors, too:
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)essentially tolerate him, principally because he caucases with the Democrats but that's about it. Otherwise he's a Senator from a tiny state that neither harms nor hurts much as the Senate goes about its business.
merrily
(45,251 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Gothmog
(145,303 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.
CentralCoaster
(1,163 posts)Are you going to tell me that the Clinton Machine didn't vet him?
Look, if there was anything to tell, Brock would have told them by now.
Vetted. Sanders. Nothing there.
Gothmog
(145,303 posts)The concept that the Clinton campaign has been very negative on Sanders is simply false when you look at what Sanders would be subject to if he was the Democratic nominee. VOX had a good article on the potential lines of attack that Sanders would be exposed to if Sanders was the nominee. http://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10903404/gop-campaign-against-sanders One of the more interesting observations in the VOX analysis is the fact that Sanders have been treated with kids gloves compared to what Sanders would face if he was the Democratic nominee. I strongly agree with the VOX's position that the so-called negative attacks against Sander have been mild. Form the article:
When Sanders supporters discuss these attacks, though, they do so in tones of barely contained outrage, as though it is simply disgusting what they have to put up with. Questioning the practical achievability of single-payer health care. Impugning the broad electoral appeal of socialism. Is nothing sacred?
But c'mon. This stuff is patty-cakes compared with the brutalization he would face at the hands of the right in a general election.
His supporters would need to recalibrate their umbrage-o-meters in a serious way.
The attacks that would be levied against Sanders by the Kochs, the RNC candidate and others in a general election contest would make the so-called attacks against Sanders look like patty-cakes. The GOP and Kochs are not known for being nice or honest and as the article notes there are a ton of good topics available for attack. Raising taxes is never a good campaign platform (Just ask President Mondale). The GOP would also raise the socialism and age issues if Sanders was the nominee.
Again, I agree with the VOX position that so far, Sanders has not been subject to negative attacks close to what the GOP would use against Sanders and the attacks against Sanders if he was the nominee would be brutal. I urge Sanders supporters to read the VOX article to start to get a feel for what real negative attacks would look like.
CentralCoaster
(1,163 posts)IE:
Hillary and Chelsea already tried this one:
They're going to ask struggling middle-class workers how they feel about a trillion dollars in new taxes to fund a grand socialist scheme to take away everyone's health care insurance and hand them over to government doctors.
And nobody cares about "communism" anymore.
In contrast, Hillary still has scandals emerging, the foundation, server, conflicts of interest, endless crap.
Gothmog
(145,303 posts)The attack ads from this appearance on Meet the Press write themselves https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/12/why-bernie-sanders-isnt-going-to-be-president-in-5-words/
Meet the Press ✔ @meetthepress
CHUCK TODD: Are you a capitalist?@BernieSanders: No. I'm a Democratic Socialist.
8:33 AM - 11 Oct 2015
And, in those five words, Sanders showed why no matter how much energy there is for him on the liberal left he isn't getting elected president.
Why? Because Democrat or Republican (or independent), capitalism remains a pretty popular concept especially when compared to socialism. A 2011 Pew Research Center survey showed that 50 percent of people had a favorable view of capitalism, while 40 percent had an unfavorable one. Of socialism, just three in 10 had a positive opinion, while 61 percent saw it in a negative light.
Wrote Pew in a memo analyzing the results:
Of these terms, socialism is the more politically polarizing the reaction is almost universally negative among conservatives, while generally positive among liberals. While there are substantial differences in how liberals and conservatives think of capitalism, the gaps are far narrower.
...The simple political fact is that if Sanders did ever manage to win the Democratic presidential nomination a long shot but far from a no shot at this point Republicans would simply clip Sanders's answer to Todd above and put it in a 30-second TV ad. That would, almost certainly, be the end of Sanders's viability in a general election.
Americans might be increasingly aware of the economic inequality in the country and increasingly suspicious of so-called vulture capitalism all of which has helped fuel Sanders's rise. But we are not electing someone who is an avowed socialist to the nation's top political job. Just ain't happening.
You can try to argue that the two terms are not the same but that will not stop the Kochs from running $200 milion to $300 million using that term in negative ads that would be very effective.
CentralCoaster
(1,163 posts)Ju jitsu.
Rass
(112 posts)The corporate media usually ignores Bernie and gives him little or no coverage. The fact that he has gained so much popularity without their blessing is quite an achievement. As more time passes, more people will hear his message. Hillary will lose more independents, progressives and minorities as a result. There is a reason why her and some of her supporters have resorted to dirty Rovian tactics with a sense of urgency. Time is their enemy.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)But, of course, no pundit ever mentions his honeymoon in Moscow, for starters. Can you imagine what Trump would do with that one? Personally, I think its cool, but our center left electorate, not so much.
apcalc
(4,465 posts)They would call him Socialist, Commie, free free free stuff, nobody has to work, ..once they got done with him , he'd be crushed in a landslide, imo.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Your observations don't make sense and don't match poll results.
apcalc
(4,465 posts)And....don't bother attacking my number of posts. I've been here since 2008.
As a rule, attacking a poster means the attacker's argument is weak.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)now to post. Well bring it on.
apcalc
(4,465 posts)Did read, didn't reply, retired now...
Here's something for you....
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/04/polls_say_bernie_is_more_electable_than_hillary_don_t_believe_them.html
Gothmog
(145,303 posts)The premise of Sanders' lame claim that he should stay in is that he is a better candidate in the general election. That claim is simply false. Sanders has not been vetted which means that Sanders is very vulnerable to attack ads. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/04/19/some-republicans-see-socialist-bernie-sanders-as-the-weaker-opponent/
This current situation is in many ways unprecedented, and makes it harder than ever to gauge which candidate is more electable this fall. We have one Democratic candidate who has been a major national figure for 25 years, and has been subjected to unrelenting national attacks for just as long, and one Democratic candidate who legitimately is significantly more liberal than many in the party.
And so, its at least possible that two decades of attacks on Clinton are baked into her polling against the GOP candidates. Nor can the possibility be dismissed that some of Sanderss positions (middle class tax hikes as part of a transition to single payer, which he defends on the grounds that Americans would benefit overall) could be made into liabilities, if Republicans prosecuted attacks on them effectively. There is a danger in being too risk averse, of course, but that doesnt mean there is no chance that Republicans could successfully use these positions to paint Sanders as an ideological outlier, as those GOP strategists suggest above.
Of course, the fact that Sanders is a relative unknown nationally, at least compared to Clinton, could conceivably play in his favor if he could successfully rebut GOP attacks on his proposals and background, he might arguably end up having less baggage in a general election than does Clinton, given her dismal personal ratings. And the rise of negative partisanship in which voters are motivated more than ever by dislike of the other side could also help mitigate any negatives about Sanders.
The point is that gaming out the electability argument either way is made harder than ever by the fact that the juxtaposition of these two particular figures has created such a strange and unique situation.
Match up polling is meaningless unless both candidates are fully vetted. Sanders is not vetted and is very vulnerable
merrily
(45,251 posts)Constant lurker, no doubt.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)He's gotten maybe 1% of the attention Trump and Cruz have, and what attention he HAS gotten has painted him as some kind of moderate (lol) compared to the extremism of Trump/Cruz.
Dem2
(8,168 posts)forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)Bernie may be losing the Obama coalition in the primaries, but I would presume the coalition would support him in the general. For all the mistakes and missteps POC and LGBT largely don't *dislike* Bernie, (one factor in Hillary's favorables issue is that Bernie's voters are flat out rejecting Hillary, while Hillary's voters tend to like both of them) they just like Hillary better. Trump/Cruz/Kasich would need NEVER BEFORE seen numbers with white voters to win, and both of them have a level of crossover appeal (Bernie takes away part of the angry white working class vote, Hillary pulls Republican women who may not show up in polling but will quietly crossover in November because they despise Trump)
YouDig
(2,280 posts)went up against the GOP. It's a whole different electorate than the primary, and he hasn't even been able to win the primary.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)YouDig
(2,280 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)But it's cool with me, bring it on.
kstewart33
(6,551 posts)Whenever you don't support Bernie. And you and other new members of DU are the latest target.
Ignore it and him. Welcome to DU.
Skink
(10,122 posts)Independents. Trump is too which doesn't bode well for Hillary.
AllyCat
(16,189 posts)So all the closed primaries for "Democrats only" just solidifies the feeling that she will win in a landslide...with Democrats. The largest group of voters are independents. Not Democrats. Not Republicans. If you want to win elections, you need the independents. That is why he is more electable and the closed primaries only offer a certain view of the electorate and who the people want.
kentuck
(111,102 posts)For example, there is a poll that shows Hillary will wipe Trump out in the general? Do we believe that poll?
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)I just can't subscribe to or buy in that being a reason for not voting for him. If he was my candidate of choice in this race, this kind of argument wouldn't only dissuade me, it would make me dig my heels in deeper.
President Obama was a relatively unknown, and they did drudge up some pretty horrendous stuff in '08, not to mention the whole birther thing that took years to shut them up on.
Personally, I do believe either of our candidates are electable this cycle, and either of our candidates can be handily defeated this cycle. We do have an unusual edge in that after 8 years of a Democratic Party POTUS in office, his popularity is likely the only reason we have a good shot at maintaining the POTUS office.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Rank-and-file Dems are probably going to break for Dems in the general, and I don't think polls about hypothetical races with unnamed running mates can tell us much.
Bernie has an edge in these polls, but "electability" has never really been defined to my satisfaction.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Voters want a choice between the far-right (Hillary) and the extreme batshit-crazy far right (Trump/Cruz/Kasich)!
The polls are merely highlighting what we already know. People are sick and tired of losing the class war. Trump and Sanders are the only candidates who claim to fight on our side. Trump's claim is obviously laughable, as he is a billionaire. Sanders has been fighting the same fight for generations now; he has proven his beliefs and his courage. That is what the populace knows and what the polls reveal.
Dem2
(8,168 posts)lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)I grew up in an era when the Dems were Dems (except they did love their wars). The Clintons and Obama have governed mostly to the right of the Repubs of my day.
samson212
(83 posts)This article is 6 months old. It says that head to head polling is not accurate a year out. Head to head polls in April are predictive!
Dem2
(8,168 posts)There are many links in the article, some from just this past week...
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)Dem2
(8,168 posts)that's not what this article is about.
Gothmog
(145,303 posts)Confirmation bias has not nothing to do with this premise of this article. Sanders supporters keep whining about not being covered by the main stream press and one of the consequences of this lack of coverage is that Sanders has not been vetted and therefore match up polls are totally worthless.
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)I read it. It confirms what Hillary supporters want to believe, so they believe it. And post it here because it confirms their own beliefs.
So the confirmation bias is not in the article, it's in this DU post. This also supports the notion that those who suffer from confirmation bias are blind to their own bias.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)because in this instance they are accurate.
Persondem
(1,936 posts)qdouble
(891 posts)Bernie's campaign will be over long before November.
Gothmog
(145,303 posts)Cobalt Violet
(9,905 posts)So there is that.