2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumEvidence Indicates that Bernie Sanders is the Democrats’ Best Shot at the White House
The answer appears to be perceived electability. When Ive phone banked for Sanders, Ive talked to a lot of voters who say theyre a big fan of his, and theyre glad hes in the race, but they just arent sure he can win a general election. Theyre scared of the Republicans, they tell me, and their foremost concern is making sure the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is, wins in November.
I think this attitude is misguided, both because there are large and important differences between the Democratic candidates and because electability arguments can be circular, self-fulfilling prophecies. In no small part because electability considerations are speculative, were much better served by casting our vote for the candidate whose record and platform is most aligned with our values.
. . .
The numbers indicate that the Democrats electoral prospects would be better under Bernie Sanders than under Hillary Clinton for two important reasons:
1. Young people, who arguably won both the 2008 and 2012 elections for Barack Obama, love Sanders. Many do not like Clinton.
2. Independents and Republicans are more likely to vote for Bernie Sanders than for Hillary Clinton.
THE REST:
https://34justice.com/2016/02/11/evidence-indicates-that-bernie-sanders-is-the-democrats-best-shot-at-the-white-house/
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)It's pretty clear the voters of the Democratic Party don't agree with you.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)See, in the GE, everybody gets to vote, including the millions of disaffected liberals who would have called themselves Democrats in the years before the Clintons swerved our party to the right. If Democrats refuse to face reality, we will lose to Trump. It's been obvious for months that Bernie is far stronger as a GE candidate.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)and pout. The rest of us will work to get Secretary Clinton elected to the Presidency and we will succeed.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)You go ahead and idol worship. The Philistines are at the gate.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)You do remember that rMoney was polling ahead of Obama only days before the GE in 2012, right?
LiberalFighter
(50,994 posts)Also, elections are not won based on national polls. The election is not determined on the outcome of the popular vote. It is determined on the outcome of the popular vote for each state.
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)Yes, every last one of them. I read that here.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)TwilightZone
(25,472 posts)Another word of wisdom I learned on DU.
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)Cobalt Violet
(9,905 posts)She's skyrocketing so much they might have to expand the sky.
brooklynite
(94,635 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)I can hear it now: "Hey, some of my best friends are people of youth."
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)No one has run any negative ads about him.
jcgoldie
(11,635 posts)Might as well poll how President Obama would do against Trump since he can't win the nomination either.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...but I can't discount it completely.
Bernie lacks Clinton's star power, but he also lacks her beggage. I'm not sure that would translate to any greater chance to defeat Trump.
tom-servo
(185 posts)... to a generation that has unfettered access to real information and isn't afraid to use it.
drray23
(7,634 posts)We elect people by going at the booth, not by selecting whomever has the highest poll numbers months before the actual election. At that point in time in 2012, Romney was polling ahead of Obama. Bernie is doing slightly better than Hillary against Trump because the GOP has not attacked him at all. Quite the contrary, Trump is using Sanders comments to attack Hillary and the DNC. If Sanders was the nominee he would be shredded. Not only is there plenty of material for the GOP to use and smear him, Sanders would be completely unable to remain calm and stay the course. He would be easily tilted by Trump. Heck, even reporters make him angry. He can not handle being challenged very well.
Triana
(22,666 posts)There IS such a thing as voter suppression and election fraud and both were used in this primary. Voters were suspiciously UNregistered or their party affiliation was changed. In MANY states whose BOEs were run or managed by Hillary supporters.
Clinton had 400+ delegates BEFORE the first vote was cast. NO VOTING BOOTHS involved. And those delegates gave her a lead in the count before a single voter ever cast a ballot. Just IMO if you think THAT is anything resembling "Democratic" you need your head examined.
Her bosom buddy DWS selected only Hillary supporters for the convention committees. Only 3 of them are Sanders supporters.
She has smearmeister David Brock running constant smear campaigns such as "chair throwing and violence" and "stole DNC data" bullshit against Sanders. The guy who called Anita Hill "a little nutty and a little slutty". But you can excuse that, can't you?
The media - all owned by 6 huge corporations - some of them the biggest tax dodgers (and biggest Clinton supporters) have trashed Sanders from the outset and continue to do so - because they want to continue dodging their taxes and avoid paying their fair share - as they know Sanders would make them do. It's not rocket science.
The entire DNC convention is financed and run by huge corprats and anti-single payer entities. But ohhh it's Hillary and we want our "first woman President" pony anyway so we'll ignore that, too.
SHE is part of the Oligarchy and the Establishment which needs to be dismantled if we're going to salvage any kind of Democracy out of what's left of our country.
And we're going to do WHAT? ELECT - HER?
I could go on...but suffice to say the woman has had the utmost in preferential treatment I've ever seen a candidate get and her supporters have a gargantuan blind spot when it comes to her record, the sources of her money ie: who OWNS her, her constantly switching positions on policy depending on what day it is, what event she's at and who she's talking to resulting in major distrust in her. It's embarrassing, shameful and ridiculous. And TRUMP is beating her in polls. HER popularity DECREASES while Sanders INCREASES.
But oh yes, she "won" you say - before even the convention has happened. She "won" before even the first vote was cast in ANY voting booth. She only did so because she was SHOVED down the throats of a propaganda and money-crippled opponent in a highly UNDemocratic and sorely compromised system and most of all a blind, fact-averse "we want our female President pony NOW" contingent of lazy, fear-driven half-wits.
Oh yea. Pfft.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)jzodda
(2,124 posts)First its months old, which is a very long time in a fluid fast moving primary.
The biggest problem is that he lost so what does it matter? HRC has millions more votes so to take the nomination away based on some polling would be super destructive to the party and the process.
HRC remains (imo) the best candidate to draw in a diverse GE population of more than just white people.
I think the post convention bump she will receive will give her a lead she won't relinquish.