2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBernie's problem: nobody believes he would be a strong GE candidate.
Well, that's one of them at least. The bigger problem is that people didn't vote for him. But if he wants to win by superdelegate coup, he needs superdelegates to believe his story. Not angry people on the internet, but superdelegates. And superdelegates are smart and understand how politics actually works, which is why they're never going to buy his argument.
Bernie points to the polls, but outside of his core group of supporters, nobody thinks that those polls mean anything. They reflect the fact that nobody has attacked Bernie, and that some Berners have hurt feelings and are currently "Bernie or Bust" though most will come to their senses and vote Hillary in November.
Here's where a bunch of Berners reply that that's not true, and Berners will never support Hillary, and Bernie has been vetted and so on. But nobody believes you outside of your little circle.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)Sanders would be a horrible general election candidate and no one believes the silly polls that Sanders and his supporters keep citing. Sanders has not been vetted and Trump could destroy him easily in a general election contest
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)which is why Trump and Joe Scarborough want him.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)The same people that rejected Bernie in the primary are, ironically, the same people who make a Trump (or any Repub) victory VERY difficult even against Bernie. Right now, if you reran every GOP victory since 1968 with 2012s demographics, the Repubs lose, except Nixon 1972 and Reagan 1984. McGovern nearly beats Nixon (!) and Mondale nearly beats Raygun (!!!!) at least based on popular vote. And Trump is not only disliked by many conservative voters, but he's driving record POC turnout, so the 2016 electorate will likely be even MORE unfriendly to the Republican.
The big worry is that a Sanders SD coup situation (as opposed to a situation where Sanders ran a better campaign and beat Hillary fair and square) would severely depress POC turnout, and if the opponent wasn't basically Mussolini reincarnated, it almost certainly would.
There are many reasons to not prefer Bernie, but electability isn't one of them, but that's not really an endorsement of Bernie so much as "you can literally run (D) Bag of Chips and beat Trump"
Vinca
(50,303 posts)YouDig
(2,280 posts)JudyM
(29,274 posts)noticed...
THAT's the biggie, imo. He provides the CHANGE liberal/progressive Democrats and Indes are calling for. Running a status-quo Democratic candidate against the fool on the right is IDIOCY itself!
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)by Bernie and Trump so that is one part...also...Hillary voters are in those polls because they will vote for the Democrat...while Bernie or bust are not...polls are early and not accurate...we don't choose our nominee based on polls.
riversedge
(70,299 posts)Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Hypothetical general election match-up polls are historically worthless. They showed Carter beating Reagan, Dukakis beating Bush, Bush beating Clinton, and so on.
An actual general election campaign is a whole different dynamic. Everyone's focus (from the media to the electorate to the candidates) changes from where it was during the primary season.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)No one including people who like Sanders think that he has been fully vetted or that he is really electable http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/24/bernie-sanders-is-crushing-donald-trump-head-to-head-and-it-doesn-t-mean-a-thing.html
While hes all but called Clinton a harlot, shes barely said a word about him, at least since the very early days of the contest. And while Republicans have occasionally jibed at him, like Lindsey Grahams actually quite funny remark that Sanders went to the Soviet Union on his honeymoon and I dont think he ever came back, in far more serious ways, Republican groups have worked to help Sanders weaken Clinton.
That would change on a dime if he became the nominee. I dont think theyd even have to go into his radical past, although they surely would. Michelle Goldberg of Slate has written good pieces on this. He took some very hard-left and plainly anti-American positions. True, they might not matter to anyone under 45, but more than half of all voters are over 45. And then, big-P politics aside, theres all that farkakte nonsense he wrote in The Vermont Freeman in the early 70s about how we should let children touch each others genitals and such. Fine, it was 40-plus years ago but its out there, and its out there.
But if I were a conservative making anti-Sanders ads, Id stick to taxes. An analysis earlier this year from the Tax Policy Center found that his proposals would raise taxes in the so-called middle quintile (40-60 percent) by $4,700 a year. A median household is around $53,000. Most such households pay an effective tax rate of around 11 percent, or $5,800. From $5,800 to $10,500 constitutes a 45 percent increase.
Sanders will respond that your average family will save that much in deductibles and co-payments, since there would be no more private health insurance. And in a way, hed have a pointthe average out-of-pocket expenses for a family health insurance plan in 2015 were around $4,900. But that is an average that combines families with one really sick person needing lots of care with families where they all just go see the doctor once a year, who spend far less. Theyd lose out under socialized health, which Republicans would be sure to make clear.
But all the above suggests a rational discourse, and we know therell be no such thing during a campaign. Itll just be: largest tax increase in American history (which will be true), and take away your doctor (which also might be true in a lot of cases). Theres a first time for everything I guess, but I dont think anyone has ever won a presidential election proposing a 45 percent tax increase on people of modest incomes. And the increases would be a lot higher on the upper-middle-class households that tend to decide U.S. elections.
Bah, you say. Bernie can handle all these things. Plus, hes going to get all those white working-class votes that Clinton will never get. Its true, he will get some of those. But every yin has a yang. How is Sanders going to do with black and Latino voters? They wont vote for Trump, obviously, but surely some percentage will just stay home. This will matter in Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, maybe Michiganall states were a depressed turnout from unenthused voters of color might make the difference. The media find discussing this a lot less interesting than they do nattering on about the white working class, but its real, and Trump is smart enough to get out there and say, Remember, black people, Bernie said your votes werent legitimate.
General election polls dont reflect anything meaningful until nominees are chosen and running mates selectedthat is, July. They especially dont reflect anything meaningful when respondents know very little about one of the candidates theyre being asked about. Superdelegates know this, and its one reason why theyre not going to change. I dont blame Sanders for touting these polls; any politician would. But everyone subjected to hearing him do so is entitled to be in on the joke.
Sanders has not been vetted and would be a horrible general election candidate
Shadowflash
(1,536 posts)Duh.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)To avoid answering how she destroyed Burlington college....wait until the media dogs focus on bernies socialist background...his paficist background....sanders be destroyed in a heartbeat. He doesn't have what it takes....and we know it
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Dawgs
(14,755 posts)He's more popular than Hillary and Trump by 25 points. He has the most popular positions. And, the more people see him the better he does.
Makes sense to pick him over the two most unpopular candidates in the history of politics.
Generic Brad
(14,275 posts)And I started out really liking him. But then his campaign stole donor data from his opponents. He refused to play by the rules and even worse, keeps insisting on changing them midstream. He gives a poor interview when he is challenged. He has hardly altered his initial stump speech. His proposals sound nice but there is no road map to execute any of them other than wishful thinking. Republicans will not magically cooperate with him simply because he is not Hillary Clinton. He is blaming everyone but himself for losing. On a daily basis his campaign makes increasingly unrealistic demands.
The more I see of him, the less I like him.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Spoiling their fun
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)Bernie would lose in a landslide.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)He'd lose worse than McGovern.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)How is this ad from McGovern any different from the campaign that Sanders is running against everyone who is accepting super pac money? http://www.vox.com/2015/9/14/9323459/mcgovern-sanders
Downwinder
(12,869 posts)At least that is what I read on DU.
I guess Nobody's opinion is not worth a whole lot.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)His only hope now is a superdelegate coup, but superdelegates aren't "Bernie Bros" on the internet, they are intelligent Democratic officials who understand politics.
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)as he lost which is what I expected.
Downwinder
(12,869 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)More individual donations than any candidate in the history of the world.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)votes count and delegates...he sure spent enough.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)This noise finally reached US coasts though
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)California has loads of new voters largely because of this 100% Democratic program. Bernie panders to them because many really don't know a lot about politics other than what they read on Facebook. Turns out they have to take an additional step to actually vote in the Dem primary so now Bernie's suing CA for a redo.
Schadenfreude or pander fail, take your pick.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)That's the kind of shit the Mr. Burns crowd does.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)His Johnny-come-too-lately lawsuit is soreloserism writ large.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)That's what's infuriating. He's using the Dem establishment to mount a "people's campaign" against the Dem establishment. Devious yes, helpful in November no.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)she supports payday lenders and thinks terminally ill cancer patients should be put in prison for using medical marijuana, to the point of working with Sheldon Adelson to defeat reform in Florida.
So the "establishment" has an actual problem, yes.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)could not win a general. He would lose Ohio, Florida and Virginia...how could he win?
gollygee
(22,336 posts)There are only so many fascist idiots in this country. There are enough in the Republican Party to get Trump the nomination, but not enough for him to win the general.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)"Nobody"? Millions of people have voted for the guy. Maybe not as many as Hillary, but that doesnt mean they dont exist.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Oh wait he won't be there.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)A lot of people have voted for Bernie, a good chunk of our party. Continually disrespecting their voices is counterproductive, to say the least.
I realize it may give the " neener neener" crowd a few seconds of good feels, but entertaining emotional 12 year olds isnt any way to win elections unless you're Trump.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)The problem is that instead of inspiring "ask not what your country can do for you" idealism he inspires "throw the bums out" mad-as-hellism who can't wait to change their D to I if they even bother to register D in the first place. Thus the Nevada convention, thus the California lawsuit. If you balance the benefits against the harm the harm wins at least from a partisan political point of view. And before sneering at partisan politics don't forget that DU is D.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)And exhort his supporters to vote for her.
That is the rightful outcome of a primary process. I understand how political parties work, thanks.
Of course, like I said upthread, if it turns out that we are stuck with a nominee under indictment or some shit, she and her supporters have fucked us all well and good.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)today ...he won't ...it is Hillary's job to make her case...see this is why we don't like him...he risks the general.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)YouDig
(2,280 posts)The voters had their say, and they said "Hillary". Bernie's the one who wants the superdelegates to reverse that. Which, you have to admit, is a resolutely anti-democratic path to the nomination.
And his problem is that, for that to work, he needs to convince superdelegates of something that only Berners on the internet believe. So you're right, it's not "nobody" it's "nobody that can help him pull off his superdelegate coup".
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Of course if she's indicted or some shit, she and her supporters have screwed us all well and good, but that is beside the point.
Still, your OP asserts that "no one thinks sanders would be a better candidate in the general"- that is false, as evidenced by the millions of us who voted for the guy.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)Yes, the OP is not literally true, but you know what I meant, it's a figure of speech. Actually, anytime someone says "nobody believes you" that is literally false because as long as "you" believe "yourself", which "you" probably do, that is more than "nobody".
Like if I said "Putin says that he had nothing to do with killing that Polonium guy but nobody believes him", technically I would be lying, because there are obviously going to be some people who believe him (although in this case not Putin), but I would still stand by that statement, because basically the whole world knows that it was a Russian assassination, less some people who are really into Russian state propaganda.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Not as many as have voted for Clinton, but a significant number nonetheless.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)I don't mean that in a disenfranchising way, I mean it in a procedural way. Barring something totally crazy in CA and NJ, Hillary is going to end up with more pledged delegates. At that point, the only people who matter are superdelegates.
I don't like that, I don't think it's democratic, and I didn't like it in 2008 when I was for Obama and Hillary was the one talking about superdelegates overturning the pledged delegates. I think it's just a dumb thing, I wish the party would get rid of them. By the way, just because I'm for Hillary doesn't mean I like everything the Democratic party does, contrary to what I've been told about myself here.
And I don't think many superdelegates at all are buying Bernie's argument. Not zero. But very few. I think most of it see it the way I do, Bernie hasn't been vetted, his socialism (democratic as it may be) is a huge vulnerability politically, nobody's scrutinized him the way Hillary has been. And also, they think most Bernie or Bust people will come around, the same as most Hillary or Bust (it wasn't called that I know) people came around in 2008.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)But again, it's patently false to say "nobody believes...." and it blows off the opinion and voices of millions of us.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)And since he's angling for the superdelegates, that makes this a legitimate discussion.
As for "nobody" I stand by my argument that it is a figure of speech, same as "nobody believes Putin didn't poison the polonium guy."
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)and frankly, that's insulting. It's a pretty different situation than Putin's polonium thing.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)If he just came out and said, I will respect the elected delegate majority, if I get less, then I'll drop out, then we wouldn't be here.
It's not 100% his fault, there's also the Democratic party that has this dumb system, but Sanders didn't have to try to game it.
Because he's chosen to play the superdelegate game, after CA, none of us will matter, as far as the nomination goes, except for superdelegates.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)But there's really no point in going round and round about it.
BootinUp
(47,186 posts)Txbluedog
(1,128 posts)Leaving aside the vetting and all that, Bernie's biggest problem is that his policies are a non-starter with the republican base and any and all centerist democrats. As much as his supporters like to shout otherwise, his policies only appeal to the far left. And the democrats have learned a long time ago that being on the far left doesn't win national elections.
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)Then you are absolutely right. Their money was on Dewey as well.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)A superdelegate coup is his only chance now. If he wants that to happen, he needs superdelegates to believe him, not angry people posting youtube videos.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)I believe he would win in a landslide.
Peachhead22
(1,078 posts)In _every_ national poll Sanders beats the crap out of Trump in the GE. Hillary polls within the margin of error against Trump.
asuhornets
(2,405 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Mike Nelson
(9,966 posts)...never thought it would be easy for Bernie. In fact, I think Trump would win as they turn it into a "Capitalist" vs "Communist" fight, with the "media" ganging up - of course, I'd do everything I could for our nominee, though.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)Bernie would be a strong GE candidate.
Not.
It's simply not credible that so many people would vote for him while still thinking he wouldn't win the general election.
What's actually mind-boggling to me is that huge numbers of those who support Hillary don't think she's trustworthy. Why on god's green earth would anyone choose to vote for someone they don't trust? And you can't even say they distrust Trump even more, because a fewer percentage of people think he's untrustworthy.
Kall
(615 posts)Thanks for sharing. I guess we're better off staking our hopes on Hillary Clinton reversing historical patterns, crawling out of the position of being the most disliked and untrusted Presidential candidate ever outside of Donald Trump (marginally), and suddenly making herself more popular with increased scrutiny. Watching her utterly unpersuasive stonewalling response to the IG report (Colin Powell did it too, even though he didn't!) I wouldn't put money on that. Wonder how many downticket Democrats she'll drag down with her.
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)You imagine what would happen when the media takes aim at bernie and talks about his 40 year history of ranting and raving against capitalism, against bushiness, against democrats....his history of being a pacifist....
the middle in america will not vote him, them the facts. There is a reason why the media has held back on sanders and its not because they love him....